[ Page 7805 ]

CONTENTS

Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading — 7805

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

On vote 54: minister's office — 7805

Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of the House to welcome, not to this chamber but to this world, the eleventh grandchild of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), born this day.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, today, April 17, is the first anniversary of the proclamation of section 15 of the Charter — the equality charter — the one which was going to guarantee equality for women, the disabled, minority groups and other groups in our society. I'd like the House to join me in recognizing this very special day.

Introduction of Bills

INSURANCE FOR CROPS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in moving first reading I would just advise the House that this is a simple one-section bill, which has the effect of increasing the amount that can be drawn from general consolidated revenue for the crop insurance stabilization account from $10 million to $20 million. This money is, of course, repaid through crop insurance premiums in subsequent years.

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

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

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

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd just like to spend a few minutes again going over some of the things we talked about yesterday in my opening remarks in the absence of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the critic in areas of labour relations. For the member's information, we talked a great deal about the industrial relations climate in British Columbia, and about the Workers' Compensation Board and what we've accomplished over the course of the past year in terms of the administration. I'm sure the members had a chance to look at those areas in the Blues. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made a little fun of my Irish accent yesterday in debate, on how I pronounce New Westminster — is that how you say it? — and the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) also had a little fun with me in talking about the past and opportunities for the future.

We talked about his $80,000 research grant, and I noticed a new election pamphlet that was put out by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and the first and second members for Victoria (Messrs. Hanson and Blencoe). It's a very colourful, nice pamphlet indeed, but I can't take credit for the way that the language is written. They talk about time for a new "beginning": b-e-g-i-n-i-n-g. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition and both members for Victoria apply to the Excellence in Education fund to be able to upgrade their opportunities to improve the English language. If they get approval, I may make application myself.

Sometimes you file things that you quote from, Mr. Speaker, so I'll file this with the assembly later on.

On a more serious note, it is nice to see the member for North Island, and I'll look forward to his participation in the debate, and his discussion and suggestions for improving the industrial relations climate, occupational health and safety and other areas of jurisdiction under the legislation and operations of the Ministry of Labour.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister of Labour. I think the lost time in the last calendar year, 1985, as a result of industrial conflicts — whether strikes or lockouts — is certainly one of the best records that I can ever recollect having seen in the province of British Columbia. It was a dramatic decrease from former years, and it's great to see this type of cooperative spirit prevailing throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia: the cooperative spirit by management and labour and the cooperation and assistance of the Minister of Labour and the provincial government in having these parties work in a cooperative manner to reduce lost time among the workers and the corporate entities in the province of British Columbia.

It looks as if 1986 is going to be another successful year. There seems to be an air of cooperation throughout British Columbia and a feeling of optimism and confidence among the private sector, and I believe the signal that we had in the settling of the transit dispute is a clear indicator of the kind of settlements that we will be unveiling in the province of British Columbia during 1986.

[10:15]

It is also encouraging to see a settlement in the pulp industry three months before the expiration of the contract. Having been involved in the field of industrial relations for the best part of my life, I cannot ever recollect a settlement being made by a major pulp union — a major forest products union — that early in the collective bargaining process. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the other major forest products unions will use that settlement as a pattern, and I am convinced that that pattern will be adopted by many other trade unions throughout British Columbia, and we can indeed look forward to another successful year in the field of management-labour relations in the province of British Columbia. It is good to see that feeling of cooperation and that spirit of enterprise being transmitted not only in government, but to the private sector and the trade unions throughout British Columbia.

[ Page 7806 ]

Also, I would like to make a few comments about the job creation happenings in the province of British Columbia. During these last few months, and indeed the last year or year and a half, there are certainly some positive indicators, a clear indication that the policies of the provincial government are working. They are being transmitted into action, despite the fact that the province is undergoing one of the most dramatic economic international downturns and recessions in its history, other than in the thirties. It would appear that the decisions made by this government in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 are paying off in handsome dividends at this point. It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, in looking at statistical data, that in the province of British Columbia there were 23,000 additional people working in the month of March as compared with the month of February 1986; one of the most dramatic growth months we've ever witnessed. Even though the province of Ontario is three times the size of B.C., the province of Quebec over twice the size, we in British Columbia created more jobs in the month of March than any other province in the Dominion of Canada: 23,000 more people working.

Also, Mr. Chairman, if you want to go back to the month of January 1985, comparing it with March 1986, just 14 months later.… We in British Columbia have to our credit 89,000 more people working in that 14-month period than we had in January 1985. I think this is a result of the framework, the foundation, the air of confidence that this provincial government has transmitted to the private sector and labour. I think if we can continue with this cooperative attitude, this feeling of confidence, we can continue to see job growth throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

I've heard it said from the other side, Mr. Chairman, that all this growth is taking place just in the mainland. Statistics will show that this is just not true. In the month of March 1986 as compared with March 1985, there were 11,000 more people working on Vancouver Island. Other examples are there for all to see, as provided by Statistics Canada. Okanagan-Boundary, February to February over the last year, 4,000 more people working. Throughout all regions we are seeing things happening in British Columbia.

I would appeal to the minister to please continue with the type of programs that you're developing. I think you are on the right track. I think we have to continue to appeal to the federal government to get on a similar track to what we're on in British Columbia. They're coming. They're not coming as fast or moving as fast as we did in B.C., but we have to continue to appeal to the federal government to work more closely with the provincial government in the area of job creation.

I, for one British Columbian, am not entirely happy with the breaks that we are getting in B.C. with the equalization payments with Ottawa. But that's another story, and perhaps there's more to be told on that another day. But when I look back at the contributions by province in the year 1985-86 toward the federal equalization payments, it's quite sad indeed to look at the statistics and see that we in British Columbia were a net contributor to the balance of payments to the tune of $607.8 million. That to me deserves attention by the federal MPs for the province. It's very interesting to go to the Hansard in Ottawa and read through the questions asked by federal MPs for the province of B.C. and see how much concern is being expressed on our behalf — the people they represent — the kind of questions that are being asked to put this message across to Ottawa that we want a better deal on equalization payments in B.C.

To the minister, I think that he has a job to do in Ottawa when he's meeting with his federal counterparts to fight and press for even a better deal than what B.C.'s getting today, because that is one of the things that's holding us back. There are too many dollars from B.C. going to Ottawa and not enough dollars coming back. It's as plain and simple as that. British Columbia represents 11 percent of the population of Canada. If you look at the amount of money that we pour into Ottawa and conversely look at the amount of money that they return to B.C. either through payments or through distribution of income.... Or if you want to look at the purchasing side, Ottawa only purchases about 4 percent of their supplies and goods and services through their purchasing commission. There's about 4 percent spent in the province of B.C., compared to the fact that we represent 11 percent of the population and contribute in excess of that percentage-wise to the Ottawa coffers.

So I will close now, but I do want to congratulate the minister. I think that B.C. Is clearly on the road to recovery. I even notice, in looking at the economic analysis put out by the B.C. Central Credit Union.... They talked about B.C. employment in the month of February 1986 compared to February 1985. They indicate dramatic growth in jobs, 50,000 jobs in that 12-month period, so there's another indication. And there are many others. The way the report reads, it's very encouraging and very hopeful.

One of the things to back up what I've said just a few minutes ago that's pointed out in the credit union bulletin on page 4 of the March edition, is that they talk about federal expenditures. If you want to talk about who is doing a job and who isn't doing a job, it's good to read this kind of stuff. We think we've got a debt problem in British Columbia; well, let me tell you, when you look at the federal government, we don't know what debt's all about. Do you realize that in the last fiscal year the federal government had to borrow $30 billion, and that, on a total budget of $116.7 billion, $25.6 billion is going toward interest? Do you realize what that means? That means that there is only about 55 cents of every dollar the federal government spends that they're collecting in current taxes, because the rest is borrowed money and interest. God help us if we ever get to that position in British Columbia, and thank God that we have a Premier and a government that is determined to bring the cost of government under control and, indeed, has given clear indication that those costs are under control.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to comment on one point, before I begin, made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I don't think any of us are very happy with the level of debt in Ottawa and the costs to all of us that that implies. But you know, we're not very much different in British Columbia. We've got $18 billion worth of debt here; we're spending close to $2 billion a year on interest alone. That's in the range of 20 percent or more of our provincial budget too. So if the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke wants to criticize the economics in Ottawa, he might look a little closer to home and see that we're not very much different here either, in respect of the massive debt that's been built up in British Columbia in the last ten years.

British Columbia must be the only parliamentary democracy in Canada where the government has so little respect for the traditions of parliament that they would begin estimates

[ Page 7807 ]

on a particular ministry on a day when they knew the spokesperson for the opposition was not able to be present. I'm not going to complain about that kind of stuff, but I just find it a good illustration of the respect that the government has for the institution of parliament. Estimates debates are an important element of what goes on in parliamentary life, and if the government has so little respect for the system that it's prepared to bring forward estimates at a time when the main spokesperson for the opposition is unable to be present, then I think, without saying any more words about it, it says more than I think we need to know about the government's respect for this system.

Frankly, it's a waste of time, because what happens is that people begin to put the transmission in neutral. I can't quite mix this metaphor properly, but they put the transmission in neutral and have the wheels spinning. I'm not quite sure how that works, but that is what happens in terms of the Legislature. We tend to waste time. So I wish the government would recognize that this place could operate with a bit more dispatch if there was a bit more respect.

Because I was away, l looked at the Blues of the minister's introductory speech yesterday, and I must say that if that is a summary of the minister's activities and ministry operations for the past year, and if that's a demonstration of what is going to be happening in the next year, then not very much has happened or is going to happen. I suspect the minister too must have been caught by surprise with these estimates coming up at the last minute as they did, because the speech sure didn't seem to have much preparation behind it. That's unfortunate, and that may not be a criticism of the minister; it may be a criticism of the House Leader.

Nowhere in the comments made by the minister is there any reference to jobs or to job strategies here in this province. The minister may say: "Well, that's not my responsibility." But clearly the one ministry in this province that has a responsibility to take a lead in developing strategies for job creation is the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour should be an advocate for those who labour or who would like to labour in this province. Clearly, judging from the minister's activities, his speeches, and his decision about what to print glossy brochures about, he neither recognizes nor accepts that he has the major responsibility in this province for devising a job strategy.

There is no job strategy in British Columbia, despite all the television commercials, all the speeches, and all the efforts to talk about partnership — and not practise it. If there were a job strategy, there would be a recognition that there are certain elements in our society and certain geographic regions in this province that have particular problems requiring particular solutions. Yet none of that seems to be happening. There seems to be no recognition whatsoever that the Kootenay region, the Prince George region, the Okanagan region, the Island region in particular and the North in general have entirely different economies, one from the other, and that a megaproject-based economic strategy in which the megaproject money eats all the available resources in terms of capital for job creation, if applied to particular and geographically small sections of British Columbia, clearly cannot deal with regional unemployment and the regional inequities that exist.

[10:30]

Those of us on Vancouver Island have waited for some years now to see what the government's strategy would be for Vancouver Island. Mr. Chairman, there is no strategy that I can discern. Duke Point got off the ground. But what is being done to ensure that that continues and expands?

The central issue on Vancouver Island in terms of developing a strong economy and providing jobs is the construction of a highway from one end of the Island to the other. We don't have one now. We have a street system between Parksville and Campbell River, a highway north of Campbell River and a partial highway south of Nanaimo. But for the rest of the Island we have a street system. You can't have an economic strategy for a region when you don't have an essential element in any economic strategy — a transportation system. There has been no strategy whatsoever for determining what the Island can do best and putting in the infrastructure. The Ministry of Labour does not seem to understand that it has a key role in this kind of economic decision-making.

It's true that the same kinds of things go on in other regions of the province. We have unemployment rates.... The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) can talk about how many more people are working this month over last month, or this year over last year; but there are still over 50,000 fewer people working today than there were five years ago, in rough terms. In any event, the unemployment rates rival those of the Maritimes, and historically British Columbia's rates have never rivaled those of Atlantic Canada. But they do now, and on Vancouver Island we have the second worst unemployment in the country. In the West Kootenays we have 21 percent unemployment as of March 1986. That doesn't even begin to count the real toll, because the way Stats Canada does its calculating, it does not include all kinds of people. It doesn't include discouraged workers who've stopped looking for work because of their age, health or lack of skills, or because they live in an area of high unemployment. StatsCan in these numbers does not include people who would like to work but do not even try because they think they have no chance of finding a job. The StatsCan numbers do not include native Indians, who are a major element of unemployment in this province, and importantly, the figures do not include the part-time worker who would like full-time employment. So in a region like the west Kootenay where we have officially 21 percent unemployment — one in five people — we no doubt have at least 50 percent more than that when you count all of these categories that are not counted. When you look at that, you're looking at perhaps three in ten, perhaps one in three people not working at the level that they would like to be working at.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

And where's the strategy? There isn't one. You know, Mr. Chairman, in this province we don't even have a strategy for planning ahead in highway construction. A major source of employment for continuing employment in British Columbia is the fact that we have a massive highways budget, both for maintenance and for new construction and for reconstruction. Yet contractors can't plan one year to the next. They don't know how much machinery to invest in. They don't know what equipment to keep. They don't know how many miles — if they're a paving contractor — are going to be paved next year. There's no plan. There's no attempt on the part of the government to say: okay, when the private sector investments are up and the economy is doing better as a result of that, we'll pull back a little bit in public expenditure in areas like highway construction; and we will plan these

[ Page 7808 ]

things out so that there is an equilibrium in the economy, rather than the massive ups and downs right now that we have which lead to situations where construction workers might have a couple of years of full work and then two or three years of no work — contractors going out of business, because they can't afford to keep the equipment sitting idle year after year. No plan. There's $1 billion a year worth of job investment potential in the Highways budget in the last two years and this year, yet there is no plan on the part of the government, no plan developed by the Ministry of Labour, to coordinate that expenditure, so that construction workers can work an even amount of time, so that contractors know how much equipment to keep on hand.

There's not even a thought, Mr. Chairman, that the government should play a role in attempting to even out the economic ups and downs that this province is so subject to. What happens instead is that the government contributes to the ups and downs by its megaproject strategy and by its refusal to put its investment in places that are important and at times that are important. Rather we get investment for political purposes. We get investment in northeast coal, because the member for that area wanted to develop it, not because it was the right thing to do at that time. We get investments in other endeavours particularly relating to highways connected to election schedules, not connected to the economics of the people who do the work in the industry — both the contractors and the workers.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't believe me, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Talk to the contractors. You wouldn't believe the workers and you won't believe me. Talk to your friends who are the contractors, because they're the people who are telling us these things today.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with developing plans, you have to have labour market forecasting. I don't see that that is being done particularly well in British Columbia now. It doesn't strike me that we have a good handle on knowing what kinds of jobs are going to be needed down the road and how many people should be trained in those particular areas. We have a rather hit-and-miss system that leads us to having unemployment rates of 90 percent in the labourers' union, coming up to 90 percent in most regions in the carpenters' union; unemployment rates across the trades of much more than 50 percent. And why? Partly because there's no planning, partly because there's no government involvement in the whole question, but also partly because there's no proper forecasting of needs, and as a result people go into trades or into skills not knowing whether there's going to be a job coming out of it. That's true right across the board. At the moment we have a surplus of teachers, so people think they shouldn't go into teaching. Has the ministry done a study on how many teachers are going to be needed in 1992, for example, and how many we potentially will have, so that we don't get into a situation where we're going to have to start importing teachers as we have in the past — or nurses or any other group or trade or skill?

I've talked very quickly about some of the regional unemployment problems. But you know, there are other kinds of problems too. I guess there are two elements of our economy now that, in terms of employment, bother me more than anything else. One is the increasing number of 45- to 55-year old men, mostly, who have been laid off, who have no other skill, whose particular skill is in surplus, and who will never work again. They're 50, 55; their pensions are not at a level that they anticipated they would be. They're at home. They don't know how to cope with that situation. They get in the way at home. Domestic problems more often than not occur as a result of that. Lives are wasted. When I knock on doors. as I do occasionally between elections, and more intensively then, in the middle of the day, I find guys who are in their fifties who have lost their jobs. Their pension levels are inadequate. They're not going to be reaching old-age pension levels for another ten years. Their wives are trying to find part-time jobs working in a dress shop at minimum wage, eking out an existence.

But you know, it's not the financial side of it that's so killing; it's the fact that they think they're not worth anything any more. They feel like that old piece of equipment or machinery that's been cast on the junk heap. That's how they feel. It may not be practical to have programs to retrain people of that age. But, my God, there must be some attention put into developing some programs to find out how we can deal with that hidden social problem that exists out there in increasing numbers.

The other area of our economy that chokes me up a bit, quite frankly, is youth unemployment. I don't know that we really know how many young people in British Columbia are not working, and at the same time are not engaged in full-time education. The numbers tell us it's in the range, over the last few years, of the low 20s — 21.6 percent in March 1986. My suspicion is that you could double those numbers and still not count all the young people who would like to be working and who are not working.

This is a problem of monumental proportion. It's a problem not just today in terms of what the impact is on young people, but it's a problem for the future of this province and of this country. It's a problem because we're going to have tens of thousands of people reaching their late twenties and early thirties never having held a full-time job; never having learned some basic things, like getting up at 6:30 in the morning and going to work; never having learned the skills that you learn in those early days in those early jobs; not having any experience, reaching into their thirties burned out emotionally, I think that 10, 15 and 20 years from now that this particular situation is going to lead to social problems the likes of which we've never thought of before in this country.

I intend to talk more about that, but I must say at this point that the Minister of Labour, who has the responsibility for youth in this province — which presumably means the most important thing, next to education, for youth, which is employment — produces a newsletter. It's in Social Credit colours, like everything else is in this province. It's the one with the massive picture of the Minister of Labour on the cover: "Spring 1986." It's a newsletter of the B.C. Youth Advisory Council, so you might anticipate that the chairperson of the Youth Advisory Council might get his or her picture on the cover; but no, they get the Minister of Labour's picture on the cover. Clearly, that's because he's in trouble in Kootenay, and he wants to make sure this gets into every household in Kootenay.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I got a dozen in the mail. They're of no use to me.

[ Page 7809 ]

Mr. Chairman, we have in this province, officially, one in five young people unemployed — no doubt unofficially closer to two out of five young people unemployed — and what do we get from the Minister of Labour, through the youth program? What's the major thing inside this leaflet? A logo design: "A Message from the B.C. Youth Advisory Council." The British Columbia Youth Advisory Council invites submissions from young people and the general public for a youth logo, etc. What do they win'? They win a three-day trip to Expo. Is that the most important thing that's required for youth in British Columbia today, or in fact is it the most important thing that's required for the re-election of the member for Kootenay? Isn't that what this thing is all about'?

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman, in making these comments I cast no reflection or no aspersion against the people involved in the ministry at the public service level who are involved in fulfilling these programs. The responsibility for the decision about what is important in youth programs is the responsibility of the minister.

We've had a youth council for some time. Most of us on this side of the House don't know a single one of those youth council members. My suspicion is that every one of them with maybe one or two exceptions; I don't know — come out of the ranks of Young Socreds or have parents who are active in the Social Credit Party. That's not a council that reflects the young people in my constituency, nor it is a council that reflects the sons and daughters of the people in the trade union movement in this province, whom I work with on a fairly close basis. That council does not reflect them. That council has not, to my knowledge, gone out and talked to young people in Campbell River who are not working. They haven't done it in Campbell River; I doubt that they've done it in Powell River; I doubt that they've done it in Alberni. What we've got is a glossy PR effort to try — thank God it's going to be unsuccessful — to re-elect the government, rather than to deal with the crisis that exists among our young people in British Columbia today. I can't believe it. The major element inside this newsletter is a logo design. No doubt, if you don't ensure that the logo can incorporate red, white and blue, you won't win.

Mr. Chairman, in passing and we're going to get back to this in more detail later on we've got some more red, white and blue for women's programs. Is this a coincidence that the colours that the ministry uses happen to be Social Credit Party colours?

I must say, to be fair....

MR. MOWAT: You just gave the committee on youth a bad name without even knowing it.

MR. GABELMANN: If the committee on youth in this province — to the member for Little Mountain — were serious about their job, they would have long before now had a meeting with the opposition members who are involved in youth responsibility. We have not, to my knowledge, on this side of the House ever had a request from the minister, the ministry, the youth council or anyone connected with them seeking our views as to what programs should be developed for youth here in British Columbia. So when we know that they don't even take that basic step to meet the elected representatives of this province, then I know what else they're up to too, which is nothing.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the fact that the government has appointed a senior person to be charge of women and women's programs in British Columbia I applaud that. And l applaud the fact that there is a genuine and serious effort to try to make women's programs an integral and an important element in the Ministry of Labour; I want to make that clear. I applaud that, because it has not always been the case in British Columbia, and if certain other members of the government caucus had their way it wouldn't be the case now. I want to make that clear. But when the problem in British Columbia for women is jobs, what do we get? "A Plan for Progress." What's in it? All kinds of nice photographs of the minister again. A message from the Premier. It takes two pages to say it's a plan for progress. The table of contents takes two pages. The message from the Premier takes another two pages. A message from the minister takes another page. Finally, there's a decent page: a message from the deputy minister responsible for the women's programs and youth services; on about the seventh page there's something worthwhile. What's in it? All kinds of nice buzzwords. What's coming? Programs, conferences. No recognition that what's required, more than anything else in this province, to assist women is full employment — that's the key — and employment at rates of pay that are equal to the rates of pay that men get, so that we no longer have the situation where women are getting 60 percent of what men get, in terms of wages. That should be the focus. It's hard economic stuff that needs to be dealt with, not this glossy PR stuff that's designed to re-elect the minister. It won't work, I might tell you that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll get you this time, Terry.

Now we're going to do some more later on in these estimates on the question of women. I just wanted to include' that at this point because I find the emphasis on gloss and glitz and PR and Socred colours in all of this stuff just a little bit too much to take when there is a crisis out there in terms of what's happening to women, what's happening to youth, and what's happening to men and women all over this province in terms of their lives. What do we get? We get millions upon millions of dollars spent in advertising.

Now I want to deal with the question of these estimates. I've been trying to figure out what the money is going to be used for that's being allocated. As I see it, just looking at it in rough terms, it looks to me that there's a $19 million amount available for grants — roughly, just short of $19 million — under the labour market programs. There appears to be another $10 million for grants and contributions for the assisted job access programs, whatever that is. There appears later on in the estimates under vote 79 another $15 million.

What's going on with this $44 million? What are the programs? What is the state of the negotiations with the federal government on the Canada jobs program, CJS — the Canadian Job Strategy, to give it its proper name? Why is it that British Columbia, unlike Ontario, seems unable to negotiate an agreement? How much money is actually going into specific programs designed to deal with the regional problems, the youth problems, the retraining problems? The year is over in 2 1/2 weeks. The money is supposed to be spent in this fiscal year. How much of it has been spent? How much of it is committed? Where is it committed? What's it for? Why are we apparently spending only $10 million on...

[ Page 7810 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Only?

MR. GABELMANN: …a summer student employment program? Yes, only.

Now I hope the minister will tell me I'm wrong. But I want to remind the minister that in 1974, with half the unemployment rate among young people, the government spent $25 million on summer employment programs. In today's terms, that's $50 million worth of expenditure, dealing with inflation. With half the problem, we spent the equivalent of $50 million a decade ago and the government, with twice the problem, should be spending $100 million to equal that level of support. What are they spending? My sense of it is that it's about $10 million.

It's really very difficult for those of us on this side of the House who want to comment on specific programs, the direction of the programs and how the money is going to be directed, when we get in the estimates these nefarious and vague kinds of statements that grants out of one program seem to be $19 million available, that there's another $10 million even for job access — presumably that's money that's going with the federal government — and there's another $15 million outside the estimates later in the book. It just doesn't make any sense, and I would like the minister, since my time is over, to tell me about that and to talk about some of the other questions that I raised in this initial opening presentation.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member too for his participation in the debate so far. First I'd like to talk about the British Columbia Youth Advisory Council and take this opportunity to welcome all of those young people who are in the gallery this morning watching the proceedings from no doubt other areas of British Columbia.

Let me say at the outset that the booklet the member talks about was not produced by the Ministry of Labour, but is a product of the Youth Advisory Council. That's exactly what the council is, hon. member: it's a youth advisory council. And, quite frankly, I take exception about the comments that you made in your opening speech, when I would have thought you would have been there presenting some opportunity for ideas for the Youth Advisory Council to develop programs and ideas. The member pleaded ignorance somewhat in saying that he hasn't had a request from the Youth Advisory Council to go before the opposition and talk to the opposition about programs that they might want to develop for young British Columbians.

Well, let me say that all of us are in this chamber as members of the Legislature because we are supposed to have been providing leadership in our community, because we're not shy about going and asking people for certain things, including their votes. So why would he want the Youth Advisory Council to go knocking on his door asking for advice? Why would he not have taken the initiative to go and talk to that group of young people who come from all regions of British Columbia?

I know not their politics, but they come from all regions of British Columbia, represent all young people across the province as far as possible — the regions, the geographic locations of the provinces, the cultural and ethnic mix of our province — and do a good job for a variety of young British Columbians. Yes, they have gone out and they have met with a variety of young people across British Columbia, and yes, they have come back with some good ideas on what the government of British Columbia can do to help them help themselves.

Quite frankly, they're getting tired of the opposition calling them the lost generation and the useless group of young people in British Columbia. As I go around the province, I see a great many very enthusiastic and energetic young people who don't want government to do everything for them, who would be pleased to be able to go out and just get a helping hand from their friends, neighbours, community and parents to help them land their first job. That is the responsibility of government.

I'm pleased to say that the government has recognized some of those areas, where they've given us advice, some of them mentioned in the throne speech, some of them in programs currently being developed by the Ministry of Labour, and some of them currently being negotiated with the government of Canada and the employment training program that the member talked about.

I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition members to make themselves available to the Youth Advisory Council, not to wait for them to come and ask them to participate in a political debate. Go and seek an appointment with them and talk to them about what they can do to help young British Columbians help themselves. They will find this government receptive to any ideas that they put forward on ways that will provide them better opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, the Youth Advisory Council is made up of a good group of hard-working British Columbians. They're not all university graduates. Some of them are single parents. Some of them are out of work. Some of them cover the far reaches of British Columbia and the regions. You can be proud of the Youth Advisory Council, and I know that young British Columbians can be proud of them and will continue to be proud of them as time goes on.

I did make a commitment to the student council of British Columbia that we would accept their nominee, selected from an election at the student council level, to have a member participate on the Youth Advisory Council. They have forwarded to me the name of a representative that they would like to place on the council, and I'll be pleased to make that appointment in the course of the next week or so.

[11:00]

The member for North Island talked about employment opportunities in British Columbia. We discussed that somewhat yesterday. the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talked about that this morning as well. Yes, there are too many people out of work in our province and in our country. We all recognize that. But what we're going to do about it — there's some difference in philosophy, obviously, between us and the party across the floor.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When the government of British Columbia and our Premier recognized the difficult times that our economy was in in 1983 and was forward-looking and looked at the world recession and the economy that lay ahead, and the opportunity for British Columbia companies and their employees to go out and sell their products in the world market, it was quickly recognized that the cost of government was an impediment to any industry in British Columbia doing business in the international marketplace. So the government came in with a plan and a strategy to reduce the size and the cost of

[ Page 7811 ]

government. When the government brought in that program of cost-reduction, the opposition mounted a campaign with Operation Solidarity and marched across British Columbia and objected to every measure that the government brought in to reduce taxes in a variety of industries.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance brought in his budget, the only government in our country that brought in a billion-dollar tax reduction over a three-year period, this opposition got up and became a me-too opposition and supported every action that the government brought in to reduce taxes. Do they know not full well that all of the tax measures that were brought in last year were designed to create employment opportunities for our people, to put our companies and our employees in a more competitive position in world markets, thus providing employment opportunities for our people?

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, this government of British Columbia takes a coordinated approach to the development of employment opportunities for our people. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, in cooperation with municipalities across the province, has developed a partnership program, because it's not just up to the provincial government to provide these opportunities. We're all partners in the system — unions, non-unions, corporations, municipalities. It's not good enough for the government of British Columbia to bring in tax reduction measures by the Minister of Finance: again, a three-year tax reduction program — $1 billion over three years. The Minister of Municipal Affairs set out on another course to provide opportunity for municipalities to put companies working within their municipalities in a position to be able to be more competitive in terms of the international marketplace, and to put them in a position, too, where they could attract industry to their community that would be able to pay less taxes and enter into agreements that would put companies going into those municipalities in a competitive position.

Likewise, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced a variety of programs to assist industry and business across British Columbia to be more competitive in terms of the international marketplace.

The Minister of Finance followed through again on a very unique program that was criticized by the opposition and laughed at in a variety of circles across the country and British Columbia. But yet it's been one of the most successful programs of any place in our country. The government of B.C. appointed a critical industries commissioner by the name of Art Phillips, who entered into a partnership program with industry, unions, municipal governments and the B.C. government and its Crown corporations, pointing out the need for all of us to come together in a great partnership and cooperation to assist all of our industries and all of our commerce to go out and provide employment opportunities for our people and expand their share in the world markets.

Those programs are working. They've worked in Granisle and in Peachland. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the United Steelworkers of America for their cooperation in working with the critical industries commissioner at Valemount and at Peachland in an effort to put their members back to work. It was unique and provided a unique opportunity in a volunteer way for the community to come together, recognizing that all of them are in partnership with each other, that it's not just the government's responsibility; that they, too, have a responsibility to their membership, their community and to the company that they work for. They recognized that opportunity. They took advantage of a program that was put in place, a unique program that was provided leadership by this government and the Minister of Finance to put their people back to work.

That is the type of approach that we must encourage not just in B.C. but across our country today if we are to be competitive in the international marketplace.

MR. WILLIAMS: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: And there's that "blah, blah, blah," $80,000 researcher, ten-pack....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! All members will come to order: the second member for Vancouver East and the minister. To the estimates, please.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, again recognizing that training is a very important part of creating employment opportunities for people, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education has developed an Excellence in Education program: again, a partnership approach and a full coordinated approach on the part of our government in developing economic development strategies and employment opportunities for our people.

Expo 86 will bring thousands of people to British Columbia in the area of tourism, which will provide employment opportunities for our people. But the benefits to B.C. are those that lie beyond Expo, because we've taken advantage of Expo to invite the decision-makers from around the world to B.C. Those decision-makers will be here in B.C., will be able to look at the programs that this government has put in place in cooperation with municipalities, unions, industry and business across our province and Canada. We will be able to take those decision-makers into the regions of B.C. to look at the opportunities that are there. We'll be able to show them that we can deliver our product, that they can rely on us in terms of price, reliability, supply and service, and that they know they will be able to get their product to world market, again showing that B.C. Is a safe and secure place to do business, to invest their money and to buy the products and services of the people of B.C.

Tied into that, mentioned in the budget debate, is the development of a preventive mediation program. Again, that's a volunteer program that is designed to assist the parties of interest in working out resolutions to their particular areas of difficulty. We will provide the tools and the personnel, but in the final analysis it's up to the trade union and the employer community in B.C. as to how they want to use those tools.

The member talked about the employment strategy program and what we are doing in terms of negotiating a renewed program with the government of Canada. It is true that the Ontario government has signed an agreement with the government of Canada. That agreement may be fine for Ontario, Mr. Chairman. It puts them at the mercy of the government of Canada and doesn't provide any long-term funding for employment training and strategies. We are currently negotiating that program with the federal government in cooperation with other provincial governments. We will hang on for the best deal we can make that will satisfy our future demands and requirements and get the best deal we can for the province and the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 7812 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I don't really know where to start. There is so much.... I won't refer to where the bafflegab comes from, but it is so much bafflegab.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read first of all something written by the Ministry of Labour.

"A single mother with little education and few skills has little economic incentive to get to work. For example, a minimum wage earner ($3.65 per hour) working full-time for a full year with two weeks' holiday pay could earn $6,650 annually, whereas a single mother with one child would receive a maximum of $7,680 direct payments on income assistance. When child care costs are taken into account, it may not be practical to have the unskilled single mother join the labour force, particularly if the job requirements have adverse impact on the dependent children. But if her educational qualifications could be upgraded so that she could earn enough to pull her family out of poverty, it may be advisable for society to invest in the training of the single mother."

That is a direct quote from a paper produced by the B.C. women's programs entitled "Single Parent Families in British Columbia: Focus on Women," page 11.

It may be advisable for society to invest in the training of a single mother. Name one program where that is happening. What are you doing? Mr. Chairman, it is clear that when we talk about women in our society, we are talking about poor people, and we're talking about people for whom there is no incentive to go to work when you have a minimum wage at $3.65 an hour, maximum annually of $6,500. Not only no incentive to go to work, but no programs for training so that perhaps a job at a higher level than $3.65 might be attainable.

Mr. Chairman, the programs of this government, on one hand in having the lowest minimum wage in this country, the lowest of any jurisdiction, and on the other hand having effectively the lowest welfare rates, means that the government is sentencing people to a lifetime of poverty. There is no opportunity to get off that treadmill, and we will have the kind of thing that has happened for generations in parts of eastern Canada where generation after generation remains poverty-stricken. We already have that in British Columbia in too many of our native Indian communities. We are now having this in other parts of this province, and not just in poor parts of Vancouver or the lower mainland, but in almost every community. You can find pockets of poverty, and it is becoming generational. The malnutrition that occurs among children has a direct impact not only on their health but on their ability to get an education and their ability to train for a job, much less to get and to hold a job. The statistics are out there and they're clear.

[11:15]

Why are we seeing generational poverty in this province? Because the government has legislated programs to ensure that people stay poor and remain forever in poverty and that their children will be destined to a life of poverty. Why? Because the economic programs of the government through this ministry in terms of minimum wage and through the Ministry of Human Resources in terms of the poverty level and the — to put it mildly — less than adequate welfare rates, mean that these high-minded ideals described by the ministry women's program will never be achieved. What possibility, what incentive is there for people to get off that treadmill?

Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister criticized me and has criticized other members of the opposition for characterizing young people as "the lost generation." Mr. Chairman, those are not the words of the members of the opposition; those are the words of the Senate Committee on Youth, as described in the Report of the Special Senate Committee On Youth produced in February of this year. It is those conservative, older — for the most part — representatives of our political system who describe young people in Canada as the lost generation. And if young Canadians are the lost generation, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the appellation is for young British Columbians, who have the problem in this province in far greater measure than anywhere else in this country.

There are any number of things that you can pick out of the Senate report and other reports that have been produced on youth, but I want to cite one particular set of tables out of this report. In 1961, as compared to 1981, in this country people between 15 and 19.... The suicide rate among these teenagers in 1961 was 2.3 per 100,000. In 1981 it was 12.7, an increase of almost six times. The suicide rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 5.7 per 100,000 in 1961, 19.6 in 1981. Young men between the age of 20 and 24 inclusive in 1981: 33.2 suicides per 100,000.

Now those numbers come from a time before the second great depression. The numbers are worse now than they were then. If nothing else alerts people to the fact that there is a problem in our society.... And it's not all to be blamed on Social Credit — only about 70 percent of it in this province. I'm being facetious. Obviously it's not all to be blamed on one government, but society has a problem when that number of young people are committing suicide. When we have increases of three, four, five and six times as many suicides among young people in a 20-year period, that tells us we have a problem. That, together with all of the dislocation and the poverty and the despair and the unemployment and the lack of skills of this generation that we're now seeing going into their twenties, should tell us that we have a massive problem which is going to take a little bit more than a youth council and a glossy presentation and a logo. It's going to take a little bit more than that, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just back up again. In talking about youth programs, we still don't know how much of that $44 million that I was identifying out of the estimates is going to be spent where. We didn't get any answer at all from the minister in that respect. But when I talked about the $25 million that was spent in 1974 and the amount that needs to be spent today, which equals $100 million to buy the same value in terms of the problem, let's look at what has happened in the last couple of years. In the last fiscal year — the one ending two and a half weeks ago — the government underspent its summer student and youth employment program by approximately $1 million — underspent at a time when officially one out of five young people are unemployed. The year before, the 1984-85 fiscal year, when similar numbers existed, the ministry underspent by $1.1 million its budget on student and youth employment programs. That's 10 percent of the amount provided. I want to ask the minister why it is possible that back in I think February he was able to go and have a press conference with the MP for Nanaimo to announce a student summer employment program — the federal part. There was no mention of the provincial part. Unless I've missed it, I don't think the minister has yet announced the provincial contribution to that summer employment program, nor how it's going to be designed. Even if he does announce it, I don't have any confidence that he'll spend it. He hasn't spent it for the last two years. Yet we have poverty like we've never had

[ Page 7813 ]

before among young people. We have unemployment like we've never had before among young people. We have a lack of trained, skilled, educated people in this province like we've never had before. We have the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education in the country here in this province. And what are the programs? Zilch. Let me apologize. You do have programs: you have a program to design a logo. It's not good enough.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that a million Canadian women will have lost their jobs in this country by 1990 as a result of tech change. Their jobs will have disappeared as a result of tech change. I don't know what the provincial figure is, but let's assume it's 10 percent — given that we have 11 percent of the population or so, but we have less of a manufacturing structure here in this province, and presumably that might lower the number. We're in the ball park of 100,000 British Columbia women losing their jobs as a result of technological change. Would the minister tell me what the programs are to deal with that crisis in employment here in British Columbia? Is there a program? Has he thought about it? I don't think so. There's nothing there.

It's a travesty that what we've had for at least the last two years in this province is a government committed to nothing else than attempting to ensure its own re-election. There is no looking at long-term needs. There's no looking at developing plans for all these groups I've identified — no effort in looking at regional needs; no plan whatsoever for any problem area in our society. The only problem they're dealing with is the problem of their popularity; and that's the one problem they can't solve. You don't even try to solve the others. You try to solve that one, and you can't even solve that.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about all the things he does. What did he do to try to save those B.C. Tel jobs in Cranbrook? What did the minister do to try to persuade B.C. Telephone Co. not to effect that particular transfer in his own riding in Kootenay, which has among the highest unemployment in this province? What did he do when the same kinds of moves were being made in other communities around this province by that particular company? I'm not opposed to progress; I'm not opposed to modernization; I'm not a Luddite. But you've got to have programs in place to look after people who are affected by tech change, by dislocation, by closures. What have you got? Nothing. The minister says — and the CRTC denies it — that he sent them a letter or a telegram, saying: "What can you do?" Maybe he did send the letter; maybe the CRTC lost it. What has he done? What are the programs? Cranbrook telephone workers symbolize the problem. They have a problem for themselves, but they symbolize a problem that is massive in this province.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island talked about a variety of things in his comments. He talked about the suicide rate among young people; he talked about poverty among young people, and so on and so forth. Without question, there are some difficult areas in our country, and throughout the world, with respect to young people, brought on by the breakdown of the traditional family unit, by drug and alcohol abuse, and by a variety of circumstances and changing times. For some of those people, yes, these are difficult times. I'm sad that you had to say that 90 percent of it was the fault of the Social Credit government. If he did stats in Manitoba, he might find that they're as high there; if he did stats in Ontario, he might find they're as high there; if he did stats in France, he might find they're as high there. There are counselling and other programs available in a variety of ministries and educational institutes across our province to assist in helping those young people overcome their difficulties.

AN HON. MEMBER: They need jobs.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Jobs may be one part of it, but it doesn't solve drug and alcohol abuse, neither does dipping their head in the toilet, hon. member. It doesn't solve their problem. It's a very difficult and complex area, and I know it was the subject of a lot of discussion in the Ministry of Human Resources estimates and the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education estimates.

The Ministry of Labour does have a variety of programs to assist single parents and, indeed, other British Columbians in terms of their ability to seek employment opportunities. The member talked about the need for single parents to get into educational programs and areas of non-traditional jobs and so on. We have programs available in the Ministry of Labour and women's programs, along with our college network across British Columbia that responds to the needs of the community in terms of the programs that they may be able to deliver to the community.

The minister responsible for post-secondary education would be better prepared to answer those questions. I'm glad that the member talked about the pamphlet that was put out by the Ministry of Labour women's programs, identifying areas of concern in the community, because the Ministry of Labour does act in an advocacy role in the ministry and in government with respect to the programs that need to be developed to assist those groups. Without question, you don't just go out and put a finger on a problem without doing some study on it.

There are difficult areas there. Some of the discussions that I've had with a variety of women's groups across the province have been brought to the government's attention. The Minister of Human Resources did announce some changes in the human resource income assistance program here during the sitting of the Legislature that are designed to give individuals additional income through being able to keep more of the money that they earn in the workplace.

There is funding in the Ministry of Labour women's programs in the area of non-traditional jobs. We have a program in cooperation with the Ministry of Human Resources income assistance program, and that has been increased. We have a personnel placement program in the Ministry of Labour women's programs as well, and the Ministry of Labour women's programs office in Vancouver provides counselling services to those groups in the community that need counselling.

[11:30]

At the present time, for the member's information, we're currently negotiating a four-corner agreement with the government of Canada that will provide for us approximately $30 million that will be able to assist us in helping in some of those areas. There are special training projects and programs as well in the Ministry of Labour that are designed to help women in particular, and those programs are available and have provided significant benefits to a variety of people across the province over the course of the past year. A lot of the women's groups that I have talked to have commended us on the development of those programs. I was seeking their

[ Page 7814 ]

advice on ways in which we could make those programs better serve their needs.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member talked about Challenge 85, the summer employment program, and didn't know whether we announced the Challenge 86 program or not. The Minister of Finance, for the member's information, did announce that in the budget debate, and it is in the estimates. It is $10 million, the same as it was last year. That is in addition to the approximately 15,000 to 17,000 jobs that will be created for young people during Expo.

The Challenge 86 program was a concern to a lot of students across British Columbia, and the youth advisory council made a presentation to me on it. They were concerned that Challenge 86 might be cancelled because of the increase in the number of employment opportunities that would be created for young British Columbians at the Expo site. Their advice to me was to continue with Challenge 86, which is a good program for students. They were concerned that it would deprive young British Columbians of the opportunity to work in the interior of British Columbia. They were concerned that it would be around the Expo site that the 17,000 were going to be employed and wanted to make sure that opportunities for students would be developed in the interior of British Columbia. I was indeed pleased that the Minister of Finance did approve the $10 million for that program again this year. That is in cooperation with the government of Canada.

The member from North Island also talked about the program being underspent. We do have a difficult time in that area. We are restricted by legislation in some ways. What happens is that employers make application for — or requisition, if you will — grants for ten students, then use only three or four or five. In the meantime, the Ministry of Labour staff is stuck with the additional request of ten students. So what we are trying to do this year.... We always overestimate the number of people that will be accessing the program. We'll be overestimating again this year and trying to have faster follow-up with the employer community to determine if they're going to take the full amount that they have requested. It is a difficult administrative area, and it is true that the program has been underspent by about $1 million, or a little bit more, this year. Every effort is being made by the ministry staff to get more people into the workplace using that program and students.

MR. GABELMANN: I knew about the $10 million, I knew about the Minister of Finance's statement, but I just expected that there would be some real program this year.

If my memory is correct — in that announcement that that Nanaimo MP made — the federal government is putting in $16.9 million. I could be out on that, but that's my memory. The minister is saying that he's going to accept $16.9 million from the federal government for B.C. summer student employment programs but is going to contribute only $10 million from B.C. coffers. I assumed that what the Minister of Finance was doing was providing a base and that the Minister of Labour would use some of these other estimate figures to try to beef up a woefully inadequate expenditure of money, underspent as it was.

If the program was having some benefit, you'd see it show in at least two ways. You'd see, number one, a reduction in the number of people, age 15 to 24, who are unemployed; we don't. You'd see it in another way. You'd see more people going on to post-secondary education because they had been able to afford it as a result of having a summer job. We see fewer and fewer people going on to post-secondary education.

Doesn't the minister understand that those two facts — high unemployment, the low participation rate — indicate that there is a serious problem? It is a problem that $10 million will not solve. Nine million dollars didn't solve it last year, and $9 million, or approximately that the year before, didn't solve it. We're talking about a crisis out there that requires money that.... It's worth at least ten miles of road.

We spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars building and reconstructing roads, but we can find $10 million for what is probably among the greatest social tragedies that is happening and is going to continue to happen if we don't find work for these people and money to enable them to go to school. The fact that we have that low participation rate in post-secondary education, and the fact that the unemployment rate continues to hover around the 20 percent mark, tells me that we should be adding three zeroes to that particular allocation. A $100 million expenditure on youth employment programs — both student and non-student — is not an inappropriate amount of money to spend in this economy considering the gravity of that particular crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take a minute so that I understand these estimates, because each year they get presented in a more and more convoluted way and a more difficult way to understand, unlike the old ways when we were able to identify precisely what money was earmarked for. In the student employment programs vote, which is not even in the Ministry of Labour votes for some reason — it comes back on page 226 in the estimates, vote 79 — there is $10 million for the general employment programs. I assume that's the $10 million that the minister is talking about for the province's share of the $26.9 that's being spent.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I see he has to look for advice about that. I'm not surprised. The $5 million is a transition to employment program. Tell me about that program. Who's directing it? What has been developed? What are the criteria? Are there brochures out on that? How much money is being spent? Who is it particularly targeted at? Tell us about that transition to employment program.

And then tell me about the $10 million figure for assisted job access programs in vote 55. Is that where the CJS money is going to be coming from? Is that $10 million for the province's participation in whatever agreement might be concluded with the federal government? Tell us about the status of those negotiations. What is it that you don't like about Ontario? If my memory is correct, they have a three-year agreement with Ottawa for their CJS participation. What is it that you don't like about it? No doubt there are things that we want to do differently here in British Columbia. What are those things? What is the thrust of the ministry's strategy in his negotiations with Ottawa? What instructions has he given to his staff as to what they should attempt to accomplish in terms of those particular negotiations, and will it happen in

[ Page 7815 ]

this fiscal year? I mean, we're already into it. Tell us a little bit about it.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for North Island talked about the negotiations going on with the government of Canada and talked about a three-year agreement that Ontario has signed with the government of Canada. They have an agreement all right, Mr. Member. The money expires next year and there is no guarantee for money in year 2 and year 3. It's not the type of situation that I want to get into in British Columbia with respect to negotiating a long-term program with the government of Canada.

Quite frankly, I would have preferred that Ontario had discussed it through the normal process with other governments across the country so that we all could have been working together getting a better deal for our province. I'm not sure whether their partner in government had any influence in that direction. What I would like to do is make sure that we have a long-term program in place. It's going to be extremely difficult to do that now because of the Ontario agreement. Nevertheless we're trying, and what we want to do is get the best deal we can for the people of British Columbia.

The member talked about other programs in the Ministry of Labour, the first-job access program and other areas. I've had a lot of discussion with the Youth Advisory Council in those particular areas, and they tell me the difficulty they've got is with young professionals graduating from university with the marketplace being the way it is — difficult to access a job. What we've tried to do there was develop a program where we would be able to provide some opportunity for young professionals to be able to go into, for example, an engineer's office, provide opportunity for them to get a job for the first year in the employment of that engineer, provide them with some assistance to do so, get the particular company that they would be working for to be a partner in that and assist those young professionals to obtain a first-time job.

Now that program was announced in the budget debate, and I was pleased to see that it was announced. Since that time there has been a committee of deputies set up to develop the program. The program will be developed in cooperation and consultation with professional organizations across our province as we seek their advice and their assistance in again helping these young British Columbians to help themselves.

We have also developed a program where we will be able to provide an on-the-job subsidy for young British Columbians who want to go into other areas of trade development and skills. That too will be worked out with the employer community. The apprenticeship training council has been asked to have a look at the development of that program and I've asked for their help and cooperation in the development of it as well.

A variety of programs is in place, with as much flexibility as we can in the development of those programs in order to provide as many young people as possible the opportunity to access those programs. I can't be more definite with the member in terms of how the program will be developed. The program is being developed by a committee of deputies now, and we've got the advice of the youth advisory council. We'll continue to seek their advice and support in the development of those programs, because all of the programs that we put together from a bureaucratic point of view are not worth anything unless they have some application in the workplace.

The member should also know that Manitoba has rejected the federal government agreement and our part of the four western provinces discussing that arrangement with the government of Canada. It is pretty complex, but we would like to hang in there to get what we consider the best deal for all of our constituents. As I said earlier, it is now going to be difficult for us to have something different than Ontario, because they did go ahead and sign that agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, l understand there is a joint.... The minister mentioned Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and left out the Yukon. My understanding is that the Yukon has been involved in this as well. Is the government of British Columbia committed to joint action with the other three provinces and the Yukon territory or are you leaving your options open to perhaps go it alone?

[11:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It also involves the Northwest Territories. I apologize for leaving out both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We are continuing to work with those areas of jurisdiction while maintaining flexibility to do our own.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the flexibility explain the fact that occasionally joint telexes that go to Ottawa outlining the position of the provinces sometimes fail to have the British Columbia signature on them, and a couple of weeks later a telex goes down to confirm the B.C. position, but in fact the initial one comes down with just the three other provinces and not B.C.?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Telegrams are sent on behalf of all of the western provinces and the two territories in that regard. There's a lead province doing that work for us. British Columbia will become the lead province in 1986, but that's my understanding of the way the agreements are being worked out.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not an important issue, but it strikes me as curious that I learn from various sources that this joint action quite often doesn't include B.C., because B.C. Isn't always ready when the other provinces are ready to present a position to Ottawa. It seems to me that with the serious nature of the problem of unemployment and the requirement for training and everything else that exists here, you'd think B.C. would be anxious to conclude this particular agreement, and would be taking the lead and not following Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I want to ask the minister whether or not it's true, in fact, that under the CJS negotiations an umbrella agreement is not likely to be signed until after the institutional training and apprenticeship agreement is signed.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I have to apologize, but let me deal with one thing first, okay, and that is the member's comment with respect to the joint agreement. Let me say that B.C. has a good working relationship with the other three western provinces and two territories. Every telex that's sent to the government of Canada is coordinated through those

[ Page 7816 ]

ministers' offices. Those ministers approve those telexes before they're sent. So the member would do well to do his homework and not lay those suspicions on the table with respect to whether or not there is participation and cooperation between those three levels of government.

Yes, they come from different political spectrums, but the cooperation between the four and the two territories, without question, is working, and will continue to work. B.C. will become the lead province in 1986. I intend to carry out that same responsibility as set by my predecessors where before we make a communication to the government of Canada, I will have the courtesy — the same one that was offered to me — of phoning up those ministers and saying: "Is this telegram okay with you to send out?" I don't see anything wrong with that. That is our working relationship. And that will continue, hon. member.

I apologize, because my staff were talking to me while you were talking to me about another program. Could you please repeat it.

MR. GABELMANN: No problem in repeating that, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to take the lunch-hour to think about whether he gave us the right answer. If I heard the minister correctly, he said that in respect of the negotiations with CJS it was a united action on the part of the four provinces and the two territories; that all communications — telegrams, telexes — that come from western Canada, going to Ottawa, are joint and are signed by everybody.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Signed, endorsed. What word do you want to use? The minister might like to check the fact that there is great deal of concern in the other provinces that British Columbia in fact isn't committed to joint action; and in fact sometimes sends its telex ten days later. The minister shakes his head. We'll see. I'll leave that subject for now. You may want to come back later to clarify it.

Let me repeat the question that you didn't hear. It's a technical question, but it's important, I think, in terms of trying to understand how this government approaches the whole question of job creation and training. Is the umbrella agreement, in respect of the Canadian job strategy and the provincial participation, to be signed after the institutional training and apprenticeship agreement is signed?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the time of the joint agreement that would be signed is subject now to discussion between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada. No decision has been made with respect to that. As well, while the member talked again about the Canadian job strategy program, we want a program, but we're committed to those actions while maintaining the flexibility to do our own stuff. We have to have that flexibility, hon. member, because there are some unique areas and training programs that British Columbia has developed. British Columbia has the best apprenticeship training program in all of our country, developed jointly with industry and unions and employers. It's been used as a model in many other areas across the land. We'll maintain that flexibility to do our own stuff. But all of the telexes and communications that go to the government of Canada are passed through the Ministry of Labour and are endorsed by the Ministry of Labour before they go.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to deal with the question of apprenticeships and the level of standard here in this province later on in these estimates, but just let me say in passing that if the government is successful in driving the union contractor out of business, there will no longer be a successful apprenticeship program run by the industry and its trade unions in this province. You'd better understand that, because one more term of this government and the government will have full responsibility for developing apprenticeship programs, because there will be no industrial plan out there any longer.

But let's get back to CJS.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scaremonger.

MR. GABELMANN: Scaremonger! God, you just have to drive around. You just have to talk to the contractors who are going broke and out of business.

Mr. Chairman, no one on this side of the House quarrels with the need for British Columbia to have a distinctive program. We have different industrial needs, we have greater problems, we have a different economy, so there's no question at all about the fact that a different program is required — a different agreement is required. But I don't understand the lack of urgency. I don't understand the minister's.... It seems to me that if the Minister of Labour were concerned about the problem of unemployment, the problem of lack of training and apprenticeship, he would have at the tip of his tongue all of the answers in respect of this particular subject, because he would be on top of it daily to make sure that the whole process was being completed quickly. But he doesn't, because he doesn't know.

Mr. Chairman, I just want confirmation if I'm right or wrong: is it true that the discussions include, as I mentioned before, institutional training and apprenticeship, include subagreements on social-assistance recipients, agriculture and immigration? Is that the sum total of the subjects under negotiation.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I think the member for North Island needs time over lunch to have a bit of a break, because I already mentioned the four-corner agreement that will be developed by the government of Canada. It does cover all of those areas, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I think the member needs some time to do some research and to check out his area of responsibility, because quite clearly, he's not prepared. I think it's the influence of that $80,000 ten-pack researcher that is sitting beside him that is causing him some problems.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the minister confirm that those are the subject areas. He may well have said it earlier, but in this part of the debate, when we're having the discussion about CJS, it would be useful for me to have it all in one place in the Hansard. It would be useful for me to know whether the minister has any other areas under discussion. In the negotiations, is an effort

[ Page 7817 ]

being made to include other areas, or to de-emphasize some of these areas that I've mentioned? What's going on?

What's going on? Why can't you be more forthcoming to this House about these discussions? They're very important, and the fiscal year has already started. The programs should be in place.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.