1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 20, Number 23
[ Page 15259 ]
The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. In the House, I call committee on Bill 9.
WATER PROTECTION ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 9; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 5 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: I haven't had a chance to follow much of this debate, and I don't wish to prolong it, but if it's okay with the Chair, I may just touch generally on the question of NAFTA and constitutional restrictions. I think the member has raised some very good points around the question of whether it's within the jurisdiction of the province to restrict exports in the international marketplace, and whether in so doing that conflicts with Canada's obligations under NAFTA and therefore, by extension, the province is required to comply. This is actually a debatable point.
This is an interesting question, because the province is required to comply with NAFTA restrictions where they impact on international trade. But the province cannot be compelled by the national government to follow any NAFTA restrictions which might impinge upon the domestic responsibilities of the province. I'll just say for the benefit of the five or six people watching that people often assume that Canada is a country that has different levels of government. In fact, that's not the case. This is a confederation, and British Columbia is sovereign in a whole series of areas, and the federal government is sovereign in other areas. In the area of water and natural resources, the province is sovereign within the boundaries of the province, so obviously this is where there's some debate.
We said that we are very concerned about water exports, recognizing that we as a province control the supply of domestic water. When it becomes an exported commodity, there's a debate then about whether it's a commodity under NAFTA, and it's also arguably a debate with respect to jurisdiction or whether this is ultra vires. In our discussions with legal counsel and others, we attempted to say that we're not concerned about water exports per se, but about the conservation of the water resource for domestic use by British Columbians. So what you find in the bill, in fact, is not a bald-faced water export ban. That's not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is largely the conservation of water and a groundwater management regime, and it's permissive with respect to enabling municipalities to work with provinces to manage our water.
In the context of conservation restrictions, it's entirely appropriate under NAFTA, or under GATT, for a provincial jurisdiction or a sovereign jurisdiction in an area to take measures to protect its domestic supply for the purposes of conservation. That's what we've attempted to do in this regard. It does impact on the ability to export. There is potentially a debate around the question with respect to NAFTA, and it's very much a debatable point. Just on that, the issue would be: if there are exports of water, or if you're prohibiting exports of water, is the export a good under the definition of a good? And if it is, arguably at least, it is therefore covered by NAFTA. This is a debatable point, because from the information we've seen, it seems the Americans.... They're not clear on this, but certainly Mickey Kantor has indicated that he believes water is a good and is therefore covered by NAFTA.
We would argue, as a province, that it is not, and I think the national government has been saying that it's not. So it is possible for someone at some future date to challenge this as being ultra vires and/or a contravention of NAFTA. We believe for two reasons that we have insulated ourselves from any successful challenge. One is that this is, by and large, a conservation measure for British Columbians. It's our sovereign right to conserve water as a natural resource, and we have set up processes in here to do that. Export restriction is only one of many levers with respect to dealing with that question. Secondly, we reject the notion that it's a good or commodity like any other commodity, and we believe that sovereignty with the province in respect of that takes precedence over any potential legal challenge.
At the end of the day, you can't insulate yourself entirely from the possibility of a legal challenge in this regard, but we believe that British Columbians would support the province with respect to our interpretation of this matter. Because, after all, this is a question of a fundamental natural resource and a question of something which is of critical value to the province -- and one where I think they expect the province to take strong leadership.
I don't know whether that answers the questions the member had, although I think it canvasses some of the turf that he has been talking about.
M. de Jong: I'm content to direct my questions to whoever is best equipped to answer.
I should say at the outset that there's no dispute here about the province's jurisdiction; that is clear. There is also no issue in my mind about the advisability of what's being done. I will go even further and suggest that I agree with the minister on the question of goods and/or products. I think there's a solid argument to be made there under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA agreement -- because they are separate documents, of course.
The point I have been making some inquiry on is that you can go beyond that -- indeed, you have to go beyond that. The problem here, if there is going to be one.... The inquiries I've been making relate to GATT specifically. I think we can satisfy the tests under NAFTA; I think we can satisfy the tests under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. But the GATT article that we are also bound by -- it's article 10 or 11 -- also prohibits export restrictions. It allows for some exceptions.
If the government has information that will make this member, at least, feel at ease, or if the government has a position as to which of those exemptions or exceptions we can avail ourselves of that will allow us to opt out of those restrictive provisions of GATT, then I'd like to hear that, as well.
Hon. G. Clark: GATT article 20 allows for domestic restrictions for environmental purposes, and we will be rely-
[ Page 15260 ]
ing on that. Environment is broadly described with respect to the conservation of a domestic water supply. We believe that the GATT very clearly allows for sovereign nations -- the province is sovereign in this regard -- to take action for environmental purposes even if it imposes, by way of a third party, an export restriction. There's a lot of evidence to that effect.
I might also say with respect to the GATT -- and I think this is an important distinction between GATT and NAFTA -- that, generally speaking, under the GATT, "sniper" subsidies are disallowed, but broadly applied subsidies, even subsidies, are allowed. In other words, if you bring in a law that provides for preferential treatment for a particular product or, in this case, a restricted treatment for a particular product which is broadly applied, the GATT is not silent on this question but is more tolerant of that, as opposed to the NAFTA, which is much more restrictive.
[6:45]
In this respect, what would be important for GATT if it were a subsidy question -- to use that analogy -- is that you're not subsidizing a particular company to pursue a particular source of business. Rather, if you had a broad policy of regional economic development, that would be allowed under GATT. So that's a different argument, and it's not as strong in this case, but I think it's important that there are quite large distinctions between the GATT rules of trade and the NAFTA rules of trade. NAFTA's are much narrower and more specific.
But first of all, most importantly, we would rely on article 20 here, which gives a jurisdiction the authority to enact laws for environmental purposes -- particularly for conservation purposes -- and that would have the incidental effect of restricting trade internationally.
M. de Jong: Again I find myself agreeing, at least in principle, with what the minister has said. Article 20 deals with conservation of -- I think the term is -- exhaustible natural resources. This is certainly a natural resource. I think the argument would arise as to whether or not it's exhaustible, and I think there's a body of international law that deals with that. But I think it does provide the strongest argument in support of the proposition that this legislation falls outside of those restrictive provisions of GATT.
One of the comments the minister made earlier that I presume the government would be hanging its hat on as well in this argument relates to the fact that this is being touted as a conservation bill and not, in its purest and simplest form, as a prohibition. On the face of it, that might be true, but when you take section 7.... We're on section 5 now, but when you take them together, I'm not sure that that's going to wash if we present that sort of argument.
The last issue I'd like to canvass on this point, having now belaboured it for some time, is this whole question of how GATT takes the issue of national treatment and the obligation that GATT imposes, and the NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement draw on the GATT provisions to impose that concept of national treatment on sovereign powers. I'm proceeding on the basis that the province would be caught by that concept of sovereignty and this idea that we are obligated to treat our international neighbours equally with how we treat ourselves. Is that an issue that the government has canvassed with its counsel? Is it confident of our position, were that argument to be made regarding our obligations under that broad range of national interest?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we have canvassed that. We don't see that as a problem in this regard, because we're not treating American companies any differently from Canadian companies. This is, if you will, a prohibition which is not discriminatory. In that respect, there isn't a.... It is, in fact, national treatment; we're treating the people of Alberta or Saskatchewan or the Americans the same way we treat everybody else. We don't see that as a problem.
As you may have gathered, we've had a significant amount of work done on this question. Joe Arvay was involved, and others. You may know Joe Arvay; he's a constitutional lawyer. So we have exhausted this in some detail. You may know, therefore -- and the member has, I think, pointed this out -- that the bill has been constructed in such a way as to try to deal with any potential challenge in this regard, because we're cognizant of some of the grey areas with respect to both GATT and NAFTA.
J. Tyabji: I think I have a few more specifics, and I too have a few questions. The question I have is: to what extent did the government canvass the legislation in Ontario with respect to this section? I know that after the Free Trade Agreement was passed, the Ontario Legislature passed a water act that specifically said it was to control large-scale transfers of water out of provincial drainage basins and to provide for the approval of large-scale exports at the discretion of the Ontario government, which is basically what we have here -- the British Columbia government deciding when there can be and can't be large-scale exports.
There are a number of people who are experts in international law, specifically the free trade agreement and NAFTA. Notwithstanding the Minister of Employment and Investment's comments about not discriminating against American investors, the fact is that because of the commodities provision of GATT, which is the definition used for the free trade agreement and NAFTA.... The commodities provision of GATT would necessarily take into account B.C.'s water, and the federal government had the authority to sign on behalf of British Columbia.
The question I have is: has there been a legal opinion -- something that maybe we could have tabled in the House -- that would say that this legislation will withstand an international challenge similar to Ontario's? Ontario's has been in place for about five years now, and it's almost identical to this. If there has been that kind of legal opinion, or if there has at least been a canvassing of what there is in Ontario, could the minister share that with us? We know that NAFTA, chapter 3, defines goods as: "Domestic products, as these are understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or such goods as the parties may agree, and includes originating goods of that party." We know that in the GATT, products are categorized in the harmonized commodity description and coding system as follows under section 22.01: "Waters, including natural and artificial waters and aerated waters not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavouring, and ice and snow." Given that we've got the definition in GATT, NAFTA adopting that definition and then NAFTA talking about the non-discrimination of all the signatories to NAFTA, is there a legal agreement that the minister can share with us? If not, is it because there hasn't been a challenge to the Ontario legislation yet?
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I beg leave to make an introduction.
[ Page 15261 ]
Leave granted.
Hon. E. Cull: I just wanted to take this opportunity during this session to introduce my son David Wickstrom and my husband, Terry Wickstrom, who are in the gallery tonight. Would the members please make them welcome.
On the question. No, we don't have a legal opinion with respect to that matter that we can share with the member. The Ontario legislation.... I understand that the bill was not enacted. The member, I know, is referring to a publication, but our information is that that bill was not enacted. There are some similarities but also some differences. The Ontario bill had the ability to provide discretion, which is not permitted in Bill 9.
J. Tyabji: It's true; it only mentions that it had been introduced. The book was published around the same time, so they didn't talk about that. As I understand it, though, the federal government did pass a similar prohibition on water.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: You're saying no. I have some documents; I'd have to find them. Maybe later on in the debate I can talk about that. The federal government did pass something. It could have been a motion.
Hon. E. Cull: It was C-156, a federal bill, but it did not pass. Neither of those pieces of legislation has been passed into law.
The Chair: Perhaps this would be an appropriate time for me to intervene as Chair. We have spent a significant amount of time, mostly under the auspices of the member for Matsqui.... Therefore I wanted to make sure that Okanagan East had her opportunity as well. The reality, however, is that the questions concerning section 5 are really questions about whether this legislation should occur or can occur. Those are obviously questions about the principle of the bill; those are questions, therefore, about second reading. Because this is an important issue, and I know we feel strongly about it, the Chair has allowed some latitude. But it seems to me we have canvassed this at great length, and therefore I would caution members to please be very limited in pursuing this thing forever.
I see the member from Okanagan East signalling that she has two brief questions, and on that note I will recognize her.
J. Tyabji: I should let the Chair know that after this section, that's pretty well it for me. I promise. I'll cut it down to a.... I want to have a life, too. I think there are some good TV shows on tonight, so....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: No, this one doesn't rate as one of the good TV shows on tonight.
Two quick things, then. Am I to understand that this is the first legislation of its kind in a provincial or federal legislature?
Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely. I'm very proud of it.
J. Tyabji: Thank you; all right. So this will be the test case, then. That's very interesting. See? That was brief.
Secondly, with respect to investment obligations, in a book, a secondary source entitled Navigating NAFTA: A Concise User's Guide to the North American Free Trade Agreement, by Barry Appleton.... In the chapter on frequently raised concerns on the NAFTA, under investment obligations -- and it's specifically on water, because obviously water is one of those issues that Canadians take very seriously -- he says:
"Whether water is traded or not, the NAFTA investment chapter imposes its obligations on how governments treat investors from other NAFTA parties."
I think that's the difference. We've been talking about government-to-government talk before. This is a private sector investor who happens to be in one of the countries that's signed on to NAFTA. And the NAFTA investment chapter obliges governments to provide national treatment to the investments of investors of other NAFTA parties, which we heard the Minister of Employment and Investment talking about a little bit. And it goes on to say:
"Should a NAFTA government prohibit the sale of water by a NAFTA investor, it would be possible for two different types of dispute settlements to occur. First, a NAFTA investor that found that its water rights were harmed by a government action could allege that an act of expropriation had occurred and claim compensation. If compensation were not immediately forthcoming, then that investor could take that government to an investor's state arbitral tribunal. Alternatively, if the investor's government supported the complaint, there could be a state-to-state dispute raised under the procedures laid out in NAFTA, chapter 20."
I raise that because of two issues. We have canvassed fairly extensively that this bill is not about reservoirs; that's something different. It would be nice at some point to be able to debate that -- maybe in the Environment estimates. But this is about the storage of water, the licensing of water and the lack of removal of water. In seeking out the advice of the constitutional experts, has the minister or the staff canvassed whether or not a private sector investor could lodge a complaint against the government if that private investor felt, as a signatory to NAFTA, that they had a right to access our water resources?
Hon. E. Cull: I compliment the member for having done her homework in this regard. Mr. Appleton is one of the people we did consult with respect to this bill. The member is right; an investor could bring an action in the case you have described. But the key is the ownership aspect of this bill. According to the expert advice that we have received, this bill provides the best protection possible against such an action.
J. Tyabji: Lastly, has there been work done with the federal Ministry of Environment on this, particularly those who had drafted the bill that wasn't passed?
Hon. E. Cull: There has not been detailed consultation. There's been some discussion with federal Environment, but we do expect them to support the bill.
M. de Jong: I have two things. First, I just want to say on the record that I raised the issues I did in this section because I believe that if the legislation does run afoul of international obligations, it is this section and section 7 that will cause it to do so. I hope it doesn't. I believe it doesn't, but that's why I raised it here and not in second reading.
[ Page 15262 ]
[7:00]
Also dealing with section 5(d), I just wanted to ask the minister.... As I read that, the legislation does contemplate a situation where an individual could obtain water in the Yukon or in Alberta, transport it through the province and sell it as a bulk water export as long as the source of the water isn't within British Columbia.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. The water obtained outside B.C., when that could be satisfactorily proved to the comptroller, is not captured under this bill. We don't want to see water diverted, but I suppose it's possible that a B.C. company could truck water from another jurisdiction into British Columbia and then subsequently elsewhere, and that would not be captured by the bill.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
M. de Jong: I want to ask the minister.... I think there's a simple answer to this. The ministry has made a conscious decision not to address diversions of water within watersheds. Could she place on the record the logic that was at work in reaching that decision?
Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of reasons we haven't dealt with the diversions within watersheds. First, we are trying to deal with just the large-scale watersheds in this bill. Second, any diversion within a watershed would be captured under the Environmental Assessment Act. Third, there would be potentially hundreds, if not up into the thousands, of diversions that could be captured under this, which leads to my fourth point. It would be extremely costly to try to deal with it under this particular bill, so environmental assessment would deal with the internal-to-the-watershed diversions. This is intended to capture the large-scale diversions between watersheds.
J. Tyabji: I note that a person is now prohibited from construction or operation of large-scale projects. I'm assuming there is nothing in this bill that would prohibit the Crown, or specifically B.C. Hydro, from construction or operation of large-scale projects capable of transferring water from one major watershed to another.
Hon. E. Cull: I believe that the Interpretation Act would cover the Crown in this respect as a person. The member is shaking her head, but my staff advise me that a Crown would be captured.
J. Tyabji: I can certainly check that, but when I did my first research on that, it wasn't listed and neither were Crown corporations. That's why I asked that.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. Tyabji: I note that section 7 is not subject to the Offence Act. I think that comes in later on in the bill. Could the minister explain that for us, please?
Hon. E. Cull: It took a moment just to sort that out. The member is referring to section 17(2), which says: "A person commits an offence who (a) contravenes section 5 or 6(1) or (2)...." The reason section 7 is not listed is that it simply says that the comptroller or regional water manager cannot issue a licence. The comptroller can't do that; the comptroller is prohibited from doing that. It would not be a matter that would be subject to the Offence Act.
J. Tyabji: Then, to get that on the record, the comptroller would be liable if the comptroller contravened this section?
Hon. E. Cull: The comptroller has to obey the section, and if the comptroller failed to do so, they would be in breach of the legislation. The Offence Act talks about individuals who would be trying to divert water from one watershed to the other, or to remove bulk water. The comptroller has the regulatory responsibility and is given the responsibility under this act not to issue licences.
J. Tyabji: The reason I ask this is that when we get to the Environment estimates, the minister may even be approached with information that shows that sometimes you'll get a regional manager, or somebody who is supposed to be carrying out provisions of an act and they don't do that, although that person is responsible for carrying out that act. The reason I'm asking why the Offence Act wouldn't apply is that you would think that if they did issue a permit and did allow something in contravention of that act, they would suffer the same consequences as somebody who violated it on their own initiative and who was not the comptroller.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, it is not common practice in legislation to make it an offence for a public employee who is charged with a responsibility to fail to carry out that responsibility. If an employee did that, the licence first of all would be invalid. If the employee did it not through negligence or through some fashion that.... If the employee did it not as a result of some accidental oversight in terms of the carrying out of their duties, but because they were wilful or negligent, they would then be liable for damages or would have liability under that.
J. Tyabji: A quick point. I just pulled out the big monster Interpretation Act, and I note that, although we're not in the section.... We talked about the definition of person, and it says it "includes a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law." It doesn't make any reference to the Crown. That was what I found when I'd looked it up before, which is why I asked that question.
Hon. E. Cull: We've been advised that government agencies are captured under this act. I will attempt to clarify that for the member, in terms of whether it's the Water Act or the Interpretation Act that actually captures that definition.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister just give us a very quick description on what the register, with the categories of registration -- the licensed and the unlicensed, the surface water and groundwater -- will look like? What will it physically...?
[ Page 15263 ]
Are we talking about a computer registration? Is it going to be tied into any of the other inventories that the Ministry of Environment has? There are so many different registries now with Environment. We've canvassed this in estimates, and I'll do this one again, but just briefly.
Hon. E. Cull: It will be both an electronic and a hard copy registry.
J. Tyabji: Although it doesn't list this in section 9, I would assume that volume and flow rates will be included in the information in the registry. It's an important point with water.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct that each registrant will have that specified.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing under my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 10, by deleting the proposed section 10 (2) (d) (ii) and substituting the following:
(ii) substantial quantities of the licensed water, if the licence is for any of the other purposes under the Water Act, as those purposes were defined under that Act.]
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I guess I didn't do all my homework; I didn't see this amendment. What is the purpose of this amendment? How does it change the bill?
Hon. E. Cull: The purpose of this amendment is to address a transitional issue. It clarifies the grandparenting provisions for persons currently removing water from the province under licences that have an appurtenancy -- for example, licences for waterworks or conveying purposes. For these licensees to register with the province and to continue to exercise the rights, the water use purposes referred to in section 10(2)(d)(ii) must be those purposes defined by the Water Act before the bill comes into force. This is because the bill includes consequential amendments to the Water Act that redefine the purposes of the Water Act to require that the water will be restricted to use within the province. Without this amendment, the registration of those licensees would be precluded.
Amendment approved.
On section 10 as amended.
M. de Jong: With respect to section 10(1), I wonder if the minister can just give us some indication of the compilation in subsections (a) through (e). Is that an exhaustive compilation of registrants presently qualified under that provision of the act?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, it is.
M. de Jong: Then moving to section 10(2)(c) of the act, it describes a particular type of person who can hold a licence. I'm afraid I don't have any idea of the numbers, so this question might not make a lot of sense. Can the minister advise me how many registrants there are?
Hon. E. Cull: We're not absolutely certain how many there are. We suspect there are very few -- one or two, certainly not many more than that -- and the provision is here to give individuals the opportunity to register.
M. de Jong: That is essentially the question with respect to section 10(3)(a) as well.
The Chair: Shall section 10 pass as amended? Oh, there was a question there -- I'm sorry, you lost me.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, you're moving along too quickly. Even I recognized that there was a question there. The answer is essentially the same.
J. Tyabji: Section 10(1) lists a number of licences that are in existence right now -- basically, I guess, you're grandfathering them. I would assume first of all that these can be cancelled subsequently or have expiry dates attached to them. That's the first question. The second question is: without too much detail, could the minister tell us what these licences are for, particularly the one in sub-subsection (1)(e), which is for 40 million gallons a year from Salmon Glacier, near Stewart? I find that one of great interest.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct with respect to the licences. All the licences can be cancelled if they fail to meet the conditions of their licence or upon expiry of the licence. The first four are for removal of fresh water from coastal streams, and the fourth is the ability to remove chunks of glacier that break off and fall into the ocean and can then be picked up by boats which have large ice-crushing machines on them.
J. Tyabji: Who holds the licence under sub-subsection (e) right now?
[7:15]
Hon. E. Cull: This licence is held by Tenajon Resources Corp.
J. Tyabji: Is it a B.C. company?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't know. I have no information on the company itself.
J. Tyabji: Do we have information about when this licence came into existence?
Hon. E. Cull: I just found the conditional water licence. It was issued April 13, 1992.
J. Tyabji: What is the commercial value to the Crown for that licence?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have that information here with me. I can undertake to get it.
J. Tyabji: Why did the minister decide to take conditional licences and protect them in the legislation?
[ Page 15264 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Simply because there are rights that were extended under the laws existing at that time, and to take them away would be to risk the matter of compensation.
J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that there is a payment of fees accruing to the Crown for each of these licences. Under the second subsection, I see there is a provision for a person who can make a claim that they have been able to remove water from British Columbia before June of this year in commercial or substantial quantities. Is there a compensation claim there if the person didn't appear anywhere on the books of the government and was doing that without providing any payment to the government for the water that was being removed? Just as this person's rights are being protected here, I would hope the Crown's rights have been protected.
Hon. E. Cull: In all cases, these would be people who hold licences.
Section 10 as amended approved.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
M. de Jong: Referencing paragraph (b), my question to the minister is: what provisions exist for notifying those individuals who will be affected by this section of the requirement to register?
Hon. E. Cull: There is an implementation strategy that has been developed. It will involve advertising as well as other means of making sure that people are aware of the passing of this legislation.
M. de Jong: Does the ministry have information relating to these individuals that would allow for more direct forms of contact? I suspect not, in that that's the nature of the category we are dealing with. I presume, therefore, that if that's not the case, we will be relying upon public announcements and that sort of thing.
Hon. E. Cull: That's correct, because if they are unlicensed and not registered anywhere at this point, it's difficult to know where they are, who they are and how to contact them directly. So it will have to be a public information method of identifying these individuals.
J. Tyabji: I note that paragraph (c)(ii) says that one of the provisions for somebody who's an unlicensed registrant or who is to become an unlicensed registrant is to show "that, for at least the 3 year period immediately before the date this section comes into force, the well or wells have been a source of water removed from British Columbia." Here we are on the groundwater issue again. What I'm curious about is why the minister would provide for a compulsory registration of these unlicensed registrants for removal of groundwater from B.C. if.... We're dealing with such a grey area in groundwater. I could understand it more with the surface water, but I don't know why this would be.... It's not even domestic use or a specific use.
Hon. E. Cull: This is one of the ways we'll be able to get a handle on exactly what is happening with groundwater. It's possible that there are people who are filling up tanker trucks from groundwater sources and removing it from the province. Because it's an unlicensed, unregistered system right now, we don't know, so this is one of the means of gaining that information, which is a part of that essential database the member mentioned at the beginning of this debate with respect to protecting groundwater.
J. Tyabji: So then these licences.... The licences to the unregistered.... Unlicensed registrants -- is that the right term? A licence to an unlicensed registrant...?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The registration of the unlicensed registrant; okay. So the register of unlicensed registrants, then, is a way to finally try to figure what's going on with groundwater. Would there be a fixed term for that licence, and in the event of finding out five years down the road what the status of our groundwater movement in B.C. is, we would be able to claw back some if we had to?
Hon. E. Cull: This is not a licence situation. I appreciate the member's difficulty in getting these terms all in the right position. But because there is no licence, there is no expiry to the licence. This is simply a registration system at this point in time.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, welcome to this exciting debate.
Then given that we know this act is a first step in groundwater -- it's the first time we've had anything -- is it the intention of the minister to take this section, where we finally have a registry of the people who are using groundwater, as a base to develop a licensing system for groundwater? Is that where we're headed with this, or will groundwater always be in this grey area of not actually being licensed but having a registry?
Hon. E. Cull: We certainly want to be able to manage groundwater better. We want to be able to manage it in critical areas. We want to be able to address some of the problems the member already brought up in her earlier remarks. But as I said at the time, we are now looking at groundwater. We will continue to discuss the best ways of protecting groundwater with those British Columbians who have an interest in the matter. It's really premature to be talking about whether we would bring in this kind of system or that kind of system. It's work that's in progress and seriously under review, but not at a position where we can say this is what we'll do.
J. Tyabji: I actually would have hoped we'd be further along on that by now. But at least we're taking some steps.
Under paragraph (c)(iv), we see that there will be evidence provided "of the highest volume in any consecutive 12 month period, of ground water that the person has taken for any purpose from that well or those wells during the 3 year period immediately before the date this section comes into force." I guess one question is: who is going to determine what that maximum or highest volume will be? Is it going to be the person who will be the unlicensed registrant? Will there be some third-party evidence -- for example, will it come
[ Page 15265 ]
through the water rights branch? The Ministry of Environment certainly has enough staff to begin to monitor this. How will that be determined? How will we determine what the highest volume is in a three-year period?
Hon. E. Cull: The words that lead into that paragraph indicate how it will be done. The person first of all has to provide evidence, and that evidence has to be satisfactory to the comptroller in this case. So there will have to be verifiable evidence that this water has, in fact, been taken out of the groundwater sources, and these have been the volumes and the quantities. They'll have to be able to demonstrate that through some tangible means.
J. Tyabji: But, recognizing that we're dealing with groundwater still, I know that it was difficult enough for the province to put in place a pilot project in the Gulf Islands. Is the province going to be providing some kind of parameters through which the tests will be done of the highest volume? We're dealing with an aquifer. And the person who's got a vested interest in really playing with those numbers is going to be the.... You know, it's the old.... We've been talking about the fox watching the henhouse in a couple of other bills. I would just be concerned that this is really open-ended and that we're leaving it to the person who has a vested interest in misrepresenting things. Not that people would do that, but if somebody did, this would be wide open to that.
Hon. E. Cull: We're talking about historical use at this point. This is establishing what has been the practice or the case in the last three years, so there will be some documentation as to how much water has been removed. For example, Clearly Canadian, which is one of the companies that does that, does have this kind of information and records that can be checked. But someone can't simply come forward to the comptroller and say: "We have been taking such-and-such a volume out of groundwater sources. Trust us." There will have to be some evidence that is satisfactory to the comptroller before this particular use will be grandparented.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
M. de Jong: I ask the question with reference to this section, but it applies in some of the other sections that deal with the registry and the requirement to keep a registry. I guess my question is: do the principles that we are generally all familiar with, dealing with the land title registry, where purchasers are entitled to rely on the information that exists there...? These sections deal with transfers and assignments. Is there a similar understanding or provision that purchasers, assignees and transferrers can rely on the information set out in the registry as to what the status of a licence or registration is?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there is.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
J. Tyabji: Under section 14(2), we see that it says:
"As soon as practicable after a disposition referred to in section 13(2) or a transfer or apportionment...in conjunction with any registration...the comptroller must issue a written report setting out for each new or amended registration
"(a) a description of the land, mine or undertaking or any combination of those things to which the rights associated with registration are appurtenant, and
"(b) the maximum annual volume, in any consecutive 12 month period, of water that the new registrant or registrant whose registration is amended, as the case may be, may take for any purpose from the well or wells that form part of the appurtenancy."
The questions that come up when I read this section are: where is a gauge of sustainability? Where is the protection in this section? Where is a limit to growth? This is called the Water Protection Act, and instead it almost seems like the water administration act. Maybe the minister is going to say that we need to at least be administering the water before we can protect it, but I don't see any section in here that puts on a maximum limit. It goes right back to the question that's come up throughout this debate: where is sustainability? Where are we mentioning the words "net renewability" versus "depletion"?
Hon. E. Cull: The protection aspect of the legislation comes not in restricting the limited number of situations that are occurring now but in preventing their expansion or additions to the list of licensees or registrants that can remove water for various purposes. Again, this is a grandparenting section with respect to ensuring that those licensees or individuals who are removing water right now do not have their rights arbitrarily taken away from them in this matter; but they cannot expand, and they cannot get new opportunities to do this. That's where the protection element comes in.
[7:30]
J. Tyabji: If we are currently at a non-sustainable level of water use, where is the protection in this section of the act for the people of British Columbia and for the future of the province?
Hon. E. Cull: That's why this is a first step. We don't know how much water is being extracted and how much is going out of the province. This will allow us to take the initial steps toward the type of sustainability provisions that the member is supporting and that I too would support. We have to gain the information and obtain the registration before we can start beginning to limit it.
Unfortunately, we do not know how much groundwater is being extracted and if it is causing a problem or not. There are some instances where there are problems, and we're aware of them. The Gulf Islands is perhaps the best case, but there are other cases of groundwater problems that from time to time come to the fore. There may be other situations around the province where sustainability is an issue, but it hasn't come to the public attention as yet. Perhaps not enough time has passed, or perhaps there are other things that are preventing it from having the attention that we'd like it to have.
These are first steps. The first steps are to find out who is doing what with respect to our groundwater. As I said, we will continue the work that we started with the "Stewardship of the Water" paper, in order to make sure that we are ade-
[ Page 15266 ]
quately ensuring the sustainability of our groundwater sources as well.
J. Tyabji: I have two quick questions, then. If, in the administration that comes into force by this section, it turns out that we are at a non-sustainable level, is the minister saying that the Water Protection Act would allow for changing the level of extraction of water? I don't see that; I see it as actually protecting the status quo.
Hon. E. Cull: That is the issue, hon. member. Because groundwater is not regulated as yet, there is no authority under this act or the Water Act that would allow anyone to take action on that. That is the very issue that must be addressed next. As I said, this is the first step, and that is an area that we are actively working on right now.
J. Tyabji: A last question under this section, then. We've talked a lot about volumes of water and quantities of water and extraction. In the event of some of the groundwater being found to be contaminated, such as water that the minister has referred to as being water that people have a right to access because of their historic use of it.... Maybe a development has occurred around it. I'm thinking of some of the controversy that has occurred in the Fraser Valley. I know that there have been a number of watersheds where people are concerned about forestry or agricultural practices. If we find groundwater contamination, would it be the first step of the comptroller to ensure that there's another source of water or groundwater, and would there be some provision within the registration of these unlicensed registrants to protect that volume of consumption?
Hon. E. Cull: Under this legislation, if there was such a situation, the comptroller would then have the ability to change the amount of water that was available to be removed by the registrants. In that respect there is power with the comptroller.
J. Tyabji: The last question, then, on this section is: are there going to be companion regulations that accompany this legislation which would carry forward some of the things we've talked about regarding sustainability or protection of a certain level of volume?
Hon. E. Cull: There is not a long list of regulations that are expected at this point under this act. There might be some with respect to information requirements, and the very final section of the act deals with a regulation that is in preparation pursuant to the Water Act that designates use of water included under industrial purposes. I guess that the short answer is no, there aren't a lot of regulations forthcoming under this act.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
J. Tyabji: Why was section 16 not put under the Offence Act, under section 17, as sections 5 and 6 were?
Hon. E. Cull: The prohibitions under the act are contained entirely within sections 5 and 6. All that section 16 does is outline the conditions of registration of an unlicensed groundwater registrant. In other words, if they did something under this section that violated the conditions of registration, they would have violated sections 5 and 6 and would be covered.
J. Tyabji: Well, once again we see the difference between the two categories, where we have licensed registrants dealing with surface water, and there are prohibitions against the movement of that water.... Unless the minister is going to tell me otherwise, it would appear that unlicensed registrants are not subject to the same prohibitions, and that even though there are conditions on that, there is no offence that can be committed.
Hon. E. Cull: No, both licensed and unlicensed registrants are subject to the same conditions, and those are the conditions under sections 5 and 6.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
M. de Jong: With respect to subsection (4), which sets out the monetary penalties that are applicable, I wonder if the minister has some comment on the maximum amount that was selected and whether she believes that, in the instances of larger-scale projects, it will serve in the future as representing a sufficient deterrent. Maybe we could start there.
Hon. E. Cull: The offence provisions under this section are consistent with other environmental legislation, including the Water Act. I'm sure the member noted this, but just in case he didn't, the fines are for each day the offence is committed, not singly.
M. de Jong: The minister is correct. That provision in the case of a continuing offence certainly does exist.
Dropping to subsection (5), I do have a concern whenever we purport to lift away the corporate veil. I must say that in principle I think that in some of these circumstances liability should attach personally to directors, where it is appropriate for that to happen. I do, however, have concerns where we deal with employees who...I think the word could be "acquiesced" in the offence. I just want to be clear on the minister's understanding of what that implies. One can conceive of a circumstance where there has been some misfeasance on the part of a corporate officer who has provided for a company to embark on a project that's subsequently determined to be unlawful. There could be a whole host of employees who have actively participated in the removal of that water from the province. I would like to think that unless there was some culpability, liability under the penalty provisions of this act would not attach to such individuals.
Hon. E. Cull: In this case, the employees would have had to know that what they were doing was unlawful but they still proceeded in doing so.
J. Tyabji: One word that hasn't come up in this debate, which is certainly a word we've heard a lot around this issue of water diversion, is Kemano. I'm curious to find out if the Kemano project would be construed as an offence under this
[ Page 15267 ]
section of the act. If that's the case, if this section were in effect when Kemano I were constructed, would that have been an offence?
Hon. E. Cull: I refer the member right back to section 1 and the definition of large-scale project. Had this legislation been in effect prior to the start of Kemano, it would have prevented it. But the definition doesn't capture it, because it's under construction.
J. Tyabji: I don't see any retroactivity provisions in here. Perhaps the Chair will allow me a little bit of leeway. I know there's a question of compensation underway on that issue, and I don't know if the minister can talk about that. But under this section, clearly the very thing that the public may be on the line to pay some compensation for would actually be an offence under the Water Protection Act. Is that one of the considerations of this act? Is there going to be any relationship between the two?
Hon. E. Cull: The matter of Kemano is being handled separately. It's not captured by this legislation. There are a number of things that the government is looking at. As you know, we have said that Kemano 2 will not go forth. But there are a number of things that are now being considered by the government with respect to ensuring that that takes place, and ensuring that all the rights and responsibilities of all parties have been accounted for.
J. Tyabji: So a future government would then not be able to reverse the decision of this government with respect to Kemano 2 because of this section of the act. Would that then be an offence? If the minister is saying it isn't captured at all, I would be curious to know why. Why not?
Hon. E. Cull: Going back to section 1, the definition of a large-scale project, which is what this act addresses, says:
"...does not include a project
"(a) that, on the date immediately preceding the date this section comes into force, is complete or in operation, or
"(b) for which, on the date immediately preceding the date this section comes into force, (i) site preparation has begun, or (ii) the fabrication, construction, installation or supply of buildings, equipment, machinery or other facilities has begun."
So it doesn't go back and capture things that were on stream, and Kemano is probably the only example that comes to mind that would be in that situation. This legislation doesn't address it, but I can assure the member that the government is looking at all means available to the government to ensure that our decision remains firm and is not changed by any future government or any change of heart down the line.
Section 17 approved.
On section 18.
M. de Jong: I'm not going to quarrel with this restitution provision in and of itself. I'm going to ask the minister, though, whether some consideration was given to how the ministry would respond to a situation where the recipient of a licence has acted outside of the terms of that licence. Specifically, I wonder whether any thought was given to providing jurisdiction to the comptroller to register liens or otherwise attach against the licence, which would provide some meat to the enforcement process. There is, presumably, a tangible asset there that, in terms of enforcing either the section 17 penalty provisions or the restitutional provisions contained in section 18.... That sort of provision would assist the ministry insofar as collections are concerned.
Hon. E. Cull: My staff are laughing over here -- not at the question, let me assure you, hon. member. I just said: "Well, he's the lawyer. Surely he has more information on this than I do."
Interjections.
Hon. E. Cull: Pardon me, hon. Chair. You were entering into the debate?
My understanding is that if there is a situation where somebody has benefited, and the court has ordered that person to pay a fine, there are remedies available to secure assets in that case. But I would defer to the greater legal knowledge of the member posing the question.
M. de Jong: The minister is correct; there are certainly provisions that provide for attachments and collections. We just passed some legislation in this House. I must confess I can't recall which bill it was; however, the Attorney General wrote into the legislation some very specific pre-emptive powers that would allow, for example, in cases of anticipatory violations of the licence, to register or otherwise attach to the licence. In the case of that licence being up for transfer, that would operate very effectively to, shall we say, encourage the licence holder to comply with either a penalty order, a restitution order or a compliance order of some sort.
[7:45]
Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day. Since I anticipate the same question, I will just indicate that the amendment is a legislative drafting detail. It limits the actions of an officer to when she or he is acting under section 22 and is consistent with the language in section 21.
[SECTION 22, by deleting the proposed section 22 and substituting the following:
Duty to disclose identity
22. A person must provide proof of the person's identity when required to do so by an officer who is acting under section 20 and who displays the officer's official badge or produces other proof of the officer's identity.]
Amendment approved.
Section 22 as amended approved.
On section 23.
J. Tyabji: I note in this section that where there are orders for compliance, the orders generate from the Supreme Court; however, the person who activates the procedure is the minis-
[ Page 15268 ]
ter. Is there a provision for the public to participate in this? If there's one thing that the public tends to monitor, it's the use of water: community water, local water, groundwater, whatever kind of water. It would seem to me that.... Maybe it can come in by regulation later under this section; I'm not sure. If I had somewhere to refer my constituents, that would be most useful, because I'm sure they'd be very helpful in helping with the compliance to this act.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: My colleague suggests that they be referred to the constituency office of the member.
In all seriousness, under this act any member of the public can bring the matter to the minister's attention so the minister can take action if she is not aware.
J. Tyabji: Was there any thought to allowing this to be some sort of officer of the House, given that it's water? For example, a member of the public can take it to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman can file a charge or take it to the.... This is where the minister applies to the Supreme Court. It's just for future consideration, maybe, that there could be more people than just the minister making the application to court.
Hon. E. Cull: No, there was no consideration to that. I think the legislation is following current practice in terms of how these things are handled. Obviously, people can take complaints to the ombudsman if they don't feel that the government is acting appropriately.
Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; C. Tanner in the chair.
Bill 9, Water Protection Act, reported complete with amendments.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 9, Water Protection Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's so refreshing to see you in the chair.
Deputy Speaker: You're very welcome. [Laughter.]
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 25.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker, every six minutes there's a traffic accident somewhere in our province, every 12 minutes someone is injured in an accident, and every 16 hours someone is killed, day in and day out. Last year 534 people died on our roads and some 47,000 people were injured -- more than the population of the city of New Westminster. This is the real hard reality of our traffic safety problem. Another reality is the cost of $2 billion a year. Anyone seeking evidence of this tragic situation need only spend a few hours in a hospital trauma ward, in a rehab centre or in an ICBC claims office. Accidents affect us, after all, and we are the principal cause of most of those accidents.
We talk a lot about our rights in society and not enough about our responsibilities. For example, holding a driver's licence is not a right, but a privilege. And we have to get the message across that driving entails heavy responsibility. We have developed our initiatives through lengthy consultation and partnership with police, local government, concerned groups, and individuals -- a process that I want to stress will continue at each and every step of the way during implementation of these initiatives. We have had endorsements and support from a long list of stakeholders, including the BCAA, the BCMA, the B.C. Safety Council and the UBCM. We have researched the world for solutions, and the results have been a made-in-B.C. product of which I'm proud and of which all British Columbians will be, too.
This legislation provides for the use of speed-monitoring cameras, it provides for driving prohibition of drinking drivers, and it provides for vehicle impoundment for drivers who drive while prohibited or unlicensed. It covers an enhanced probationary licensing for new drivers, as well. These measures will save the people of British Columbia $350 million in the first year in our hospitals, in our workplaces and, of course, in big savings for insurance. Moreover, and more importantly, these measures will save 100 lives as well as thousands of injuries in the first year. The reduction in human suffering is our principal motivation in bringing forth these initiatives.
Traffic safety is something that goes to the very core of our society. There are few among us not touched by accidents in one way or another, and there are few among us who will not benefit from the measures we are taking. There is the health dimension, to which I have alluded. Fewer accidents mean fewer hospital beds taken up by those accident victims, lower demand for rehabilitation services and extended-care facilities, and the freeing of services desperately needed by the sick and the elderly. This is critical for us to be successful in dealing with budget constraints imposed as a result of cutbacks at the federal level -- cutbacks that will impact severely on our social spending, especially in health. The demands for fiscal responsibility have never been greater, and we are showing that. There is also the economic dimension. Accidents, of course, cause huge losses in jobs and productivity, impairing abilities and, of course, dashing opportunities.
Now let me describe our initiatives one by one: first, the speed-monitoring cameras. We will be deploying 30 cameras around the province. They will be used in consultation and
[ Page 15269 ]
partnership with police, local governments and traffic safety groups. We will be concentrating on high-accident locations and where conventional enforcement is not practical. We will be focusing on the worst offenders. The thrust of the program is to get drivers to slow down, thereby reducing accidents.
[8:00]
Speeding is a widespread, persistent problem, as shown by the fact that police handed out 400,000 speeding tickets last year -- a rate of one every 73 seconds -- accounting for half of all the traffic tickets issued. Socially, speed is valued, associated with performance and efficiency. It gives us a feeling of power, freedom and status. But impressionable young people are acquiring misguided notions of what speed and the automobile are all about. A recent ICBC study found that 78 percent of driving depictions on Saturday morning television programs for children involved high speed or other excessive behaviour. That's giving young minds the wrong ideas, and we have to counter this messaging with one that shows that speed kills and is not acceptable.
Unsafe speed costs us millions of dollars each year, and it is a major contributing factor in 20 percent of all fatal accidents, second only to alcohol. Certainly we need to examine the speed limits on all our roads, and as an adjunct to the introduction of cameras, we will be reviewing the limits to ensure they are consistent with road alignments. It goes without saying that the faster a vehicle is travelling at the time of an accident, the more damage will be done to property and of course to lives. Speed-monitoring cameras are simply a device to get drivers to heed posted limits. Our success won't be measured by how many motorists are ticketed for speeding but by how few.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
One of our other initiatives is driving prohibition. This gives the superintendent of motor vehicles the authority to prohibit from driving any driver who fails a blood-alcohol test or refuses to take one. The prohibition will last 90 days; it will be automatic and independent of any subsequent court action. Our aim is to get drinking drivers off the road. The drunk driver has wreaked havoc on the lives of far too many people for far too long. This group was responsible for one-third of all traffic fatalities in 1993. Also in 1993, some 50,000 motorists in B.C. were either charged with a drinking-driving offence or given a 24- hour roadside suspension. Despite the early successes of the provincial CounterAttack program, more needs to be done to crack down on the hard-core, repeat offenders.
Last year there were 655 charges laid against people driving while prohibited following a conviction for drunk driving. So we are taking the next logical step: we are removing not only the offending driver from the road but also his or her vehicle. Vehicle impoundment is tough medicine, but people who abuse our licensing system need an incentive to obey the law: an incentive not to drive while prohibited and an incentive not to drive while unlicensed. Those who do will risk losing their vehicle for 30 days the first time and 60 days for each subsequent occasion.
Motorists who drive without a valid licence pose a serious threat, and it's a growing concern to my ministry. Just the other day a Vancouver prosecutor was quoted as saying that driving without a licence was the most common charge he deals with.
We know British Columbians support the measures we have proposed. Last year, an ICBC study commissioned by Angus Reid found that 94 percent of respondents supported vehicle impoundment and 94 percent also supported driving prohibition. We also know that these measures work in other parts of the world where they have been implemented. The measures we propose have to be tough, because of the size of the problem, but they also have to be fair. The legislation sets out appeal procedures for both prohibition and impoundment, and includes a provision to allow release of an impounded vehicle for compassionate reasons.
Finally, this package of legislation covers an enhanced probationary licensing program for new drivers. New drivers are a high-risk group. One in five is involved in an accident within the first two years of driving -- more than double the rate of one in 12 for those drivers who are experienced. Traffic accidents are a leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Too many young lives are being cut tragically short because of poor driving.
Our program is designed to make the 60,000 new drivers who enter our system each year better and safer drivers. We'll be extending the minimum waiting period for road tests from 30 days to six months -- or three months, if the learner has graduated from an approved driving school. During the learner period, the new driver must be accompanied by a licensed driver aged 19 or older.
We'll be introducing a new feature -- suspension -- which will have the effect of lowering the tolerance for poor driving. We'll also be imposing a zero alcohol limit for drivers during their probationary period. It's a well-known fact that alcohol and inexperienced drivers are a lethal mix. These measures are targeted at the high-risk and reckless drivers who are responsible for a high proportion of accidents, especially those involving injury or fatality. The measures are part of a range of initiatives we are developing to enhance the safety of the roads in our province.
To implement these initiatives, we have formed a project team comprising senior officials of the motor vehicle branch, the Attorney General ministry, the Health ministry, police forces, BCAA and ICBC. This group will set the policies, while a broad-based working group will oversee the various elements of the initiatives.
Crucial to the implementation has been the upgrading of our computer system in the motor vehicles branch. We're allocating $10 million for this system, which will bring our operations into the twenty-first century. Altogether we are allocating $25 million for traffic safety programs, and ICBC is contributing an additional $15 million. We have been bolstering our revenues through improvements we have made and are continuing to make our fine-collection process important as well.
Considering the social benefits I mentioned earlier, the return on our investment in traffic safety initiatives will be on the order of tenfold. Our initiatives are consistent with the government's mandate to keep the B.C. economy strong and British Columbians healthy; they are consistent with our pledge to make our roads safer. We are committed to this task through consultation, and we are committed to action. These initiatives will significantly change driving in British Columbia for the better and will enhance the enforcement capabilities of peace officers when dealing with drivers who do not drive in accordance with the laws of the road. Further, these initiatives will make driving on our roads safer.
[ Page 15270 ]
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. May I have the motion for second reading, if I haven't had it already?
Hon. J. Pement: I move that the bill be read a second time now.
Deputy Speaker: I'm sensitive to that -- probably overly so.
D. Symons: I'm glad we cleared up that point. It would be unfortunate if we went through this whole debate and had to start over again.
I cannot find fault with anything the minister has said. Indeed, I can say that I'll end up supporting the bill. The concerns I have with the bill aren't that there's anything wrong with the intent of what they're trying to do. I wholeheartedly agree with what the minister was referring to. What I have difficulty with is the fact that I don't think the bill really does what is intended for it to do -- that is, make our roads safer, and see that the drivers that are on the road are more competent than they currently are. The bill doesn't go far enough, but it's a small step in the right direction. In that mode, I say that I would end up supporting the bill.
I have some concerns about various sections of it that I certainly will raise as we're going through committee stage. Where I find the most difficulty is that a good amount of it, if we look at it as more of an enabling sort of bill.... We don't really find the definitions of the new graduated drivers' licences that will be brought in that the minister referred to in her opening address. I'd like to see a little more. I've read the news releases. If the minister is saying that they are going to bring in the graduated driver's licence for new drivers, it doesn't go far enough, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
The most important point I have with it is that this bill looks too much like it's simply bringing in radar cameras as a method of restricting or taking care of speeding drivers. To too many people, that looks like a money grab.
By the way, I must say that I don't find fault with the use of radar cameras. What I do find fault with is what's not mentioned here and has not been mentioned anywhere. Along with the introduction of this bill and the introduction of radar cameras and stiffer penalties for people who are drinking and driving or people driving while their licence is suspended -- and I go along with all of that -- what is really needed is a very strong education program. We haven't heard that yet anywhere. It's mandatory.
If this bill is going to be meaningful, we really have to have two things going with it: one is some improvements to the road sections that cause accidents -- intersections and so forth where frequent accidents happen.... This government has brought in some methods where ICBC and the Highways ministry together share the costs of improving some of the road intersections. That part's done, but along with it we also need a really hard-hitting advertising campaign that will really hit home to the people that we're serious about this. We'll try and make drinking and driving and driving while your licence is suspended....
I was amazed when I heard how many people out there are driving.... When they do road checks, they find a number of people with either a suspended licence or no driver's licence or a driver's licence that has expired. The number is extremely large. It shows that we have a problem on the streets that hitherto has not been addressed. I don't know that this bill addresses it seriously enough.
When we take a look at some of the provisions to do with driving without a licence or with a suspended licence and the provisions that are brought in here and the penalties that go with it for drinking driving, I don't think they go far enough. I can see a first-time offence maybe being somewhat lenient, but this bill still allows for what I would say is lenient treatment for second-and third-time offences. I would see the use of vehicle impoundment coming in much sooner than this bill seems to do.
Beyond that, the ideas and the points that the minister made when she was introducing the bill, I would go along with. I would hope with the graduated licence that we would go along with the zero blood alcohol content. I also believe that we should have some curfew on new drivers driving past midnight through to the early hours in the morning.
I believe they should have a limit on the number of passengers. This is particularly true of young drivers. When they get their driver's licence, they go partying at night and have a load of people in the car. We read all too often of tragic accidents that happen at 2 or 3 a.m., with a young person driving and a group of young people in the car, and it's not just one person that's killed or injured, but it's a whole carload of them. Bringing that in as part of the graduated drivers' program would be one way of maybe cutting down on the fatalities that we see when young people's lives are cut short.
I also believe that new drivers should be accompanied for a period of time -- beyond just the learner's licence -- by an adult with a valid driver's licence who has also had at least four years' driving experience. I haven't heard that as the intent of the government.
Beyond those points that I've made, I go along with the bill and will support it at the end of second reading.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly to the bill.... Our critic for Highways is not here tonight, so I'll be fairly brief.
We certainly support the graduated driver's licence that's proposed in the bill. In fact, I can recall in my first session in the House asking the Attorney General at the time if we should maybe look at this type of procedure with young people learning to drive. Specifically, what I was relating to was more the seasons in the north, where you have spring, summer, winter and fall, and they're very distinct and pose some real problems for new drivers. So I'm pleased to see in the bill that we're going to go to that process. It will only lead to a lot fewer accidents on the highway.
I remember doing a poll in the school in my constituency and talking about raising the age to 18 before a person could receive a driver's licence. I can tell you that I received quite an earful for that -- in fact, even for a graduated driver's licence process. But in the end it will be better for all concerned. It will be better for the young people, because they'll have an opportunity to spend more time getting more experience. One knows that you can go to school or university all your life, but you have to get your feet on the ground for a while before you get some of that experience.
We have some problems with photo radar. To be perfectly frank, I myself have not made up my mind at this point
[ Page 15271 ]
whether I agree with photo radar or not. I know, in listening to the minister talk about the number of deaths and speeding tickets.... I believe you can't argue that speed does not kill. It does. In our province we see a tremendous increase in ICBC rates, related very likely, a lot of them, strictly to speed. If this would in the end reduce our costs for ICBC for our insurance, how could one vote against something like that?
[8:15]
The difficulty I have is that someone else could be driving your car. I know there's a bit of a provision there, but it's still there: someone else could be driving your car. The other issue is the trucking companies that have many trucks on the road. They're going to be faced with some difficulties. People who rent out cars, I believe, are going to have some difficulties in rental cars, trying to track those people down. I guess there's a procedure for doing it, because I can recall getting tracked down for some parking tickets in the city of Victoria with a rental car. So obviously they can track you down. But it does lead to some more paperwork.
I've had some strong representation out of my constituency from some people; they don't think it's fair. I'm not sure whether those are the people who usually speed or not. But if each and every one of us thinks about our driving habits.... When I drive to work every morning here, I know that -- I've got to be frank and honest -- I'm not always driving the speed limit. There are many here.... In fact, we know one in this Legislature who's really bad, and that is the member for Esquimalt. He was always on the ropes for speeding someplace, so I can't imagine that he's going to stand up and speak in favour of this bill at all.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I'm told, is another one who does a lot of speeding. I don't know; I don't ride with the guy. Maybe some of the other members from the Liberal Party do.
There's a section in here with a maximum $2,000 fine that can be levied, which we would like to have some more clarification on. We'll do that, I guess, through committee stage.
The zero tolerance for drinking and driving I agree with 100 percent, absolutely. To be perfectly frank, I don't think there should be any tolerance at all for drinking and driving -- none whatsoever. There I vary very much from the photo radar and the speeding aspect of it, but I do believe that alcohol is another large contributor to accidents and carnage on our highways. I think we see that quite often. I would like to put on the record that I very much support that and the 90-day prohibition period that's contained in the bill. I certainly agree with that.
There are some other sections that deal with the impoundment of vehicles driven by unlicensed and suspended drivers. I think those are also fairly good sections of the bill, but we have some questions we would like to ask in committee stage about what happens to the people who really own the vehicles. If you're suspended from driving, obviously you should lose the vehicle. It's not much different from hunting out of season or fishing when you're not supposed to; you lose everything -- you lose your vehicle, your fishing rod and your rifle. So when you're driving without a licence or under suspension, there should be some stiffer rules.
We will wait until we get into committee stage to discuss the photo radar with the minister a bit more, but I can say that I approve of the rest of the bill, basically. With those few words, I take my place.
L. Fox: I, too, would just like to put a few things on the record with respect to Bill 25. It's hard to argue against the principle of this bill, which is, I believe, to reduce the incidence of accidents, deaths and carnage on our highways. Indeed, that is a laudable thing to do, and I think we all support that.
I would, however, like to go on the record as an individual who doesn't support photo radar. Indeed, I believe this is going to be a cash cow for the government, and I'm very concerned about that. I recognize that it has had some success in other jurisdictions, although I also understand that one of the new Premier of Ontario's campaign promises was that he is going to get rid of it. Given the results in Ontario today, I would suggest that he is reflecting the mood of the people with that statement.
As an individual who drives about 50,000 to 60,000 kilometres a year, I have had five tickets in my entire life. I don't know that I haven't had the odd occasion, as has my colleague for Peace River North, where occasionally you are a bit over the speed limit for a split second or a little longer. You get penalized for it. Indeed, I've never had an accident or caused an accident. I think there are a lot of issues that will flow around this initiative, and I believe that at the end of the day, we will see that it's nothing more than a cash cow for government.
But I'm totally behind the rest of the bill, and I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate -- so I can vote against that particular clause but support the rest of the initiatives contained within the bill.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call upon the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose comments will close second reading debate.
Hon. J. Pement: I feel that on the whole members have keyed into some of the concern areas, certainly about advertising and such. The government is already doing heavy advertising campaigns with regard to people understanding the speed situation. Certainly I think the focus is on the high-risk driver, and as we go through the different clauses, that will be understood better by members with regard to some of the concerns they have brought forward. Therefore I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 25, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 34.
OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. J. Pement: This legislation before the House today addresses a matter of great concern to this government and to the people of British Columbia: collection of fines --
[ Page 15272 ]
particularly those for traffic violations. If we want drivers to change their behaviour because of the risk of a ticket -- and this is essential for road safety -- we need a ticket system with teeth and one that people respect. Outstanding fines due to the province total $132 million and involve more than half a million drivers. This amount of money could pay for several schools, a good-sized hospital or 100 kilometres of new highway. The number of motorists represents almost one-sixth of all drivers in the province.
This problem has ballooned because of the lack of incentive to pay a fine sooner or the lack of a penalty for delay. Last fall we launched a campaign to crack down on the problem, placing liens on property and making third-party demands to banks and employers. A month ago we announced we would be referring the worst cases to a collection agency. The result of these efforts has been dramatic. In the first quarter of 1994, the shortfall in collections was about $3 million, and in the first quarter of this year, the shortfall was about half a million dollars -- a sixfold improvement. This has been quite a turnaround, and the situation is continuing to improve.
We have faced formidable challenges in taking charge of this problem. The numbers we have been dealing with are very large. In 1993, traffic enforcement officers in British Columbia issued more than 820,000 tickets -- approximately one ticket every 40 seconds. About half of them, of course, were for speeding. Of the total, some 50,000 -- or about 6 percent -- were disputed, which added pressure to our court system.
In recent years, only about a quarter of these motorist have had their fines paid in the time allowed. The majority have waited, many until it has come time to renew their driver's licence. Some simply haven't bothered to renew at all, presumably to avoid paying their fines, but continue to drive regardless. In 1993 more than 30,000 motorists in British Columbia were caught driving without a valid driver's licence; that's more than one driver in 100. The normal penalty for this offence is a $100 fine.
Police have been supportive, but they want a more effective ticket or penalty system to deal with the situation, and we're responding. I recently introduced traffic safety initiatives that include the provision, as we said before, to impound vehicles of unlicensed drivers caught driving. That will be a real deterrent for those motorists who think they can ignore the licensing requirements -- rules that are designed to make our roads safe. But we need to do more to increase the deterrent effect of fines. Fines are levied to correct behaviour that threatens public safety, and the effect is lost if there's no incentive to pay in the first place.
Today we're introducing legislation that addresses this deficiency. We are proposing to charge interest on overdue fines as an incentive to offenders to settle their accounts in a more timely fashion. We'll be recommending the conventional rate of interest, which is 3 percent above the government prime. But since this is ultimately a justice matter, the decision about the rate will be left to the Attorney General and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of B.C.
There'll be no surprises. People with overdue fines will be given every opportunity to pay before the interest is charged. We'll be conducting an advertising blitz as the date of enactment approaches. Once the legislation is enacted, however, interest will be applied as soon as the fine comes due and will be compounded monthly. We are taking this action principally to bolster the deterrent value of fines, and this will enhance police enforcement efforts, which will make drivers more heedful, I believe, of the traffic laws. That, in turn, will make our roads safer for everyone to use, which is, of course, the number one priority of my ministry.
I move the bill be now read a second time.
D. Symons: I don't have any difficulties with the bill. It's a natural following of Bill 25 which we were discussing a few moments ago. Just before I get into the bill, I should like to read something in that I think is apropos to the hour of the evening. These are some quotes I've taken from Hansard. The first one is from the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head: "The Attorney General acts as if this debate is about the logical way of doing the government's business, as if this five-minute recess and then carrying on in this evening, last evening, and however many evenings we've got ahead of us is a logical way to go about doing business." That is, of course, not what is happening here. This is a government that is so much in chaos it can't even manage the agenda of the Legislature. We are sitting in the evenings, and a few nights ago I was sitting until 11 o'clock -- standing, actually -- debating the estimates of the Transportation and Highways minister. I don't believe that legislation by exhaustion is something we should be doing here.
Indeed, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith in 1991 said: "We now have the rest of the budget to approve, and they" -- referring to the Socreds at that time -- "want to push that through as quickly as possible. As our House Leader pointed out, 'legislation by exhaustion' used to be the trademark of Social Credit. Maybe we're coming back to that" -- I think this is something that we have to watch; suddenly we have night sittings. "The government's own problems seem to have dictated the agenda of this House, and I think that's an irresponsible way of doing government."
In fact, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said: "It's evidence again that this kind of incompetence we've seen time and time again over four and a half long years" -- in our case, three and a half long years -- "with this administration...."
[8:30]
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The minister rises on a point of order.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. Mr. Speaker. With regard to what we're doing tonight, I believe we're doing second reading of a bill, not making opinion on whether the member is tired or not.
Deputy Speaker: Certainly the custom and the customary procedure in this House is to allow considerable latitude in second reading. The minister's point is well taken, and I would caution the member to restrict his remarks as much as possible to second reading and the principle of this bill.
D. Symons: I got within one sentence of completing what I was going to say anyway, so I don't really mind. I thank the Chair for that caution, and I will stick to the bill from this point on.
Bill 34 simply enables the fines that will come from increased traffic surveillance -- particularly through the use of photo radar -- to end up being collected, whereas it seems
[ Page 15273 ]
that in the past we've had a great number of people who decide, even though they've got a fine, not to pay it.
My concern with this bill, as with the other, is that I don't think it really goes far enough. I have a concern that somebody who's irresponsible enough.... When they're given a traffic ticket to pay within 30 days, and they decide, "The heck with that; I'm not going to pay it," that saying, "We're going to charge you prime plus three" -- or prime plus two or whatever -- "interest on that outstanding fine," will not really be the incentive to get them to run in and pay the bill. If the minister is correct and that works, I would be pleased to be found wrong in this. I would be delighted to be found wrong. But I somehow think that the irresponsible element who aren't paying their tickets won't now be motivated to pay them because we're going to be charging interest on them.
So I would want something more. I go back to the thing I mentioned before, that I think it is more of a deterrent to somebody if they end up losing their car in the process, through impoundment. If a police officer pulls a car over and through using the computer on-board he discovers that there is $500 in outstanding traffic fines there, and the officer says: "Please sir, would you step out of your car. It's being impounded until you pay your traffic fines...." I think that a couple of notices like that in the newspaper of events happening would have a far greater impact on people deciding that it's time to pay their outstanding fines than the fact that we may add a few percentage points of interest onto the outstanding fine. Beyond that, I do hope that this measure will work, because it's irresponsible for drivers to be given fines for traffic offences and not pay them. I wish the government well with this bill.
R. Neufeld: Briefly on Bill 34, it's a fairly brief bill specifically related to fines and to the previous bill that we just spoke to that allows the government to charge interest at prime plus whatever. If that does encourage people to pay their fines, fine, I don't have any problem. This government obviously has quite a problem with collecting fines. I think they're up around the $120 million range, and that has gone up dramatically -- about the same curve as the debt has since this government took office. Obviously they like to borrow lots of money, but they don't like to collect the fines. So if this is one way of being able to collect the fines, I guess I would have to be in favour of it, although I will reserve my right to vote on it section by section when we go into committee. With those few words, I take my place.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister's comments will close debate.
Hon. J. Pement: The attitude of the members is interesting with regard to their comments about whether this legislation will have teeth or not. I talked to a radio announcer in Prince George about this type of initiative, along with initiatives that we put in place to do with credit agencies collecting fines as well. The radio announcer said to me: "Well, I've always thought of fines as an interest-free loan." And I said: "Well, I suggest that you'd better pay up." He said: "Well, I think maybe I'll start doing that, because in comes the interest on the loans." Also the fact that a credit agency may be there to collect....
I really believe it's not the one piece of legislation alone; you will be finding that it's an accumulation of policies, programs and directions, plus the legislation, that is going to put teeth into the situation. Therefore I look forward to going through this piece of legislation clause-by-clause with the members.
I now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 34, Offence Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. I believe the member for Vancouver-Langara adjourned debate.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading continued)
V. Anderson: I'm continuing to speak on Bill 20, the amendment to the GAIN Act -- Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act. The main essence of this act is to bring in a review board, an appeal board, which can overrun the tribunals that have been so successful within this province.
I would like to read into the record some responses that we've had with regard to this bill. One comes from David Mossop, who works very much with appeal processes in the province. He is a lawyer of high repute, who has a great deal of concern about fairness and justice for people within our communities. He talks about the amendments to the GAIN process:
"The Minister of Social Services has introduced into the Legislature the most significant change in the welfare system in 25 years. These changes will significantly change the way community advocates handle and deal with welfare problems for their clients. The results of the changes are detrimental to the client.
"What are the consequences for the client and community advocates who represent them? The simple answer is: in my opinion [it is] a step backward. Under the present system most appeals are won for the client if they are represented by a trained advocate. If the ministry was unhappy with the decision, the only option was to bring judicial review, which required the approval of the higher-ups in the ministry and approval of the Attorney General's department.
"About one or two judicial reviews were brought each year. Therefore, most community appeal boards' decisions stood. Under the new system, the local area managers can appeal on their own to the new appeal board on grounds much broader in scope than judicial review, which is usually limited to questions of law. To launch such an appeal based on the procedure of other tribunals, all that will be necessary will be a simple letter. There will be a lot more such appeals than judicial reviews.
There are some unanswered questions:
"Will this new tribunal be based in the lower mainland? Will clients in the north be forced to travel at their own expense to be at the hearing? Will the tribunal travel? Will the cost of the tribunal be more than the money the ministry saves by so-called 'wrong decisions'? Who will sit on these boards? The new legislation will allow the cabinet to deal with the issue of reinstating benefits pending an appeal. What does the ministry have in mind?"
There are just so many unanswered questions.
What should happen is that the initial decisions made at the beginning that have been appealed should be made prop-
[ Page 15274 ]
erly in the first place. That's where the system needs to change -- on the front line, so the right decisions are made in the beginning and they don't need to be appealed once, twice or three times. Now, you can go to the initial tribunal of the community, you can go to this new appeal board, and then you can go to the courts. It's just adding bureaucracy, staff, time and complications.
The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. have written to the Hon. Minister of Social Services. The letter says:
"I have recently learned that the GAIN Amendment Act...may be passed into law in the very near future. I am writing to urge you to delay this process until interested parties and organizations, like FAPG, have had a chance to review Bill 20 and have had meaningful input into these amendments." It's no wonder they are asking for time. Even in this Legislature the bill was brought in, and second reading was called two days later, on five minutes' notice. At least we did have advance notice on second reading tonight. They go on to say: "We are outraged by the proposed amendments...."
Interjections.
V. Anderson: The members of the government side are complaining that we're nagging, because we are telling the concerns of the people around the province. I continue to read, and bring forward, the concerns of the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia:
"We are outraged by the proposed amendments. The clear message of Bill 20 is that recipients of social assistance are receiving benefits they do not deserve. You should realize that the real problem is that benefits are seriously inadequate. Pouring money into a new appeal system and data-matching systems is offensive. Bill 20 simply panders to the prejudices of those who believe that poor persons are to blame for their own poverty and are misusing the system.
"Our most serious concerns are:
"1. Data-matching agreements. We strongly object to any amendment that would give you the power to enter data-matching agreements with any public body to facilitate the exchange of information about individuals who apply for, receive or have received income assistance or social services. This is a massive invasion of privacy for any individual who has...received benefits under the GAIN Act. This kind of intrusion would never be tolerated if it affected those with decent standards of living. At minimum, such broad powers should not be granted without the input of those whose privacy rights will be violated.
"2. Income Assistance Appeal Board. The establishment of the Income Assistance Appeal Board to hear appeals from the decisions of tribunals raises many serious problems. These include:
"The members are appointed by the government. Appeals to a government-appointed board would make the present community-based tribunal system a sham.
"The appeal is by way of stated case. This would mean that individuals can have their benefits denied without even the chance to be heard by the board.
"The grounds for reviewing a tribunal's decision set out in section 25(3)...are too broad. In your press release you only refer to errors of law.
"There will be a limitation period for filing an appeal, and if that is missed, the person is deemed to have accepted the tribunal's decision and cannot appeal or file a judicial review application. Currently there is no limitation period for filing a judicial review application.
"The board must review the tribunal's decision and any records on which it was based. Currently, tribunal hearings are not recorded. Is the ministry also going to pay to have hearings taped and then transcribed if there is an appeal?
"The proposed amendments do not refer to this point, but we assume that benefits will continue to be reinstated pending the appeal board's decision."
Hon. Speaker, there are other concerns within this bill that we'll be dealing with in committee stage. Another member, a community member working with low-income people, writes:
"Bill 20 is a hefty rewrite of GAIN Act appeal provisions which will enable a ministry to use its own appointees to overturn appeal tribunal decisions without the effectiveness, fairness or openness of court. These changes are justified by the government in a press release which states in part that up to one-third of tribunal awards were excessive or undeserved.
"This bill also provides for further entrenchment of longstanding ministerial...procedures. These include setting qualifications of tribunal members, establishing appeal time limits, sharing information with other jurisdictions, public bodies and the new appeal board and establishing procedures for repayments and assignments."
Hon. Speaker, from a number of corners we're hearing the same messages from across the province: that the government has not talked to the people who will be directly affected by this, either the low-income people -- the clients who will be directly affected -- or the people who have worked with them on their behalf or have advocated for them in our community.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Another report says that there is no doubt that the story behind the changes to the appeal procedure and behind proposed changes to the definition of "handicapped" is part of what's coming in. But clients do well at tribunals, frequently at tribunals that the ministry is not happy with.
[8:45]
"But rather than go the fair route and take one in three tribunal decisions for judicial review...the government is unilaterally changing the rules, replacing qualified and impartial judges with their own hand-picked umpires. This is a good lesson for us all, and we have Premier Harcourt and Minister MacPhail to thank for it: if you lose too often, don't appeal to the umpire; change the rules and pick your own umpires.
"Those of us who have experience of tribunals and appeals know why the ministry loses. In the first place, the decision they made was probably insufficient to meet the 'needs' of the client as defined in the GAIN Act."
And that goes back to what I said earlier, hon. Speaker. If the original decisions were in relation to the act itself, then there would not be the requirement for the appeals. But time and time again we have discovered -- and I have sat on these appeal boards myself as chair of these boards -- that the decisions based on regulations that were simply an interpretation of the act did not deal with the requirements of the act.
"Tribunals are usually directed to be fair, large and liberal in their interpretation of the GAIN Act and regulations. Tribunals can be so directed because these standards are set out in the Interpretation Act, which applies to every enactment except for those explicitly excluded. And although they are working under exactly the same laws as tribunal members, ministry employees seem to be able to disregard the Interpretation Act with impunity."
If the ministry really gave a damn about appeal costs and the conditions of its clients, the ministry could simply apply the same standards of interpretation to their own eligibility decisions as tribunals do to theirs.
Just today, I got a phone call from a lady in Keremeos, who then faxed me....
[ Page 15275 ]
An Hon. Member: A woman.
V. Anderson: A woman, sure. Thank you, I will accept that correction with pleasure.
She heard that the act was to be up today and had taken the time to phone Mr. Clark's office to find out what time it would be on the agenda tonight. It's pretty close: 9 o'clock. I told her it could be a little earlier or a little later. Then she faxed me a letter that she had written. She wanted to say simply.... I won't go into all of her letter at this point, because it deals specifically, in many places, with indications that come within the act. The summation of it, in her mind, is that we don't need this other layer of judicial appeal; rather, we should make more effective use of the court system. That is her recommendation. She also indicates that in section 9 there's a series of new innovations. She sees no reason for these. They simply complicate the process and make it unfair and unworkable.
The low-income community right across the province, from the north to the south, has written. The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. have written and are meeting this weekend to say to the minister: "Hold up. Let us sit down and discuss it. Let's come together on something that we can agree on and understand so we can work with you." They do not want this to go ahead in the manner of being bulldozed and then have to bear the brunt of it.
Even from a political point of view, I say to the minister and this government: if you wish to maintain the support of the low-income community in this province, don't go ahead with this act. From their point of view, this act, above everything else, says that you have turned your back on them and that you have not carried forth with the promises you put forth of consultation and fair play and support. This is the one act -- among many, but this one particularly -- that is aimed directly at those who are forced to live on low incomes. Above all, they did not expect to receive this from this government.
In fairness to them, we cannot support this. It does not have the consultation; it does not have the support of the community; it has not been well thought out; it is not fair; it is not just.
R. Neufeld: To speak briefly in second reading to Bill 20, the bill makes four significant changes to the GAIN Act that I can see. It adds proceedings under the Family and Child Service Act to limit conditions under which information collected pursuant to the act is not protected. In fact, there are some difficulties I can see with that portion of the act. Possibly during committee stage we can go into that a little bit more. Secondly, it eliminates the provision for temporary grants or advances to those ineligible for receiving assistance -- for example, those waiting for UI. That's another section of the bill that we'll also get into during committee stage.
The one part of the act that I agree with and that I must commend the minister on is the part that gives the minister authority to make regulations governing entering into agreements with other public bodies concerning data matching and sharing information within government. That's a move long overdue, one that, as I say, I must commend the minister for doing. It's a good move.
But as is typical with this government, they put a few good pieces into a bill, and then they chuck in one that nobody can support. I find that rather unreasonable. It's reprehensible. It's not right, and the minister knows it.
The one I can't support is the tribunal part -- the setting up of more boards, more appeals, all those kinds of things -- setting up another three to six cabinet appointees to set up this new Income Assistance Appeal Board. The member for Vancouver-Langara.... Although I don't agree with all of his politics, I can tell you that I do agree with him on the issue about appeal boards and the processes that people have to go through for appeals. It's a step backwards.
It's been brought forward that we wonder where this board will sit. That's very important to me. Is it just going to be in the lower mainland, which is very typical? It's typical of this government. Anything that they put together is for the lower mainland; it's for Vancouver. The rest of the province -- well, they can get along the best they can.
On those few notes, I can tell you that we are going to vote against the bill in second reading, specifically for that section. We find it, as I say, reprehensible that the minister would throw something like this into a bill, that was probably a good bill, drafted fairly well and one that we could have supported. But typical of the socialists, they've got to try to slide something in and hope it gets through. So we will be voting against this bill in second reading.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to rise and actually give the facts around Bill 20. The opposition parties should be deeply concerned when the two of them join together in opposing a piece of legislation. It clearly means that neither of them understands it. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised at that. Let me just talk a bit about why an appeal board....
You know, I find it unbelievable that the member for Vancouver-Langara, whose party talks about cuts, cuts, cuts, is allowed to stand up here day after day after day and break with his party on spending. Every time the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara stands up, he spends $10 million more -- $10 million! By the time he finishes in my estimates and in debating this bill, we'll probably be able to add another $200 million to the income assistance bill. Does he ever support anything -- any significant initiative -- that actually brings fairness to deliver money to those in need as opposed to those who abuse? No, he doesn't.
So how much money will be left for those who are truly in need? When the member for Vancouver-Langara is finished, there will be none left for families who are truly in need. Does the member for Vancouver-Langara know that come 1997-98, there's going to be $800 million less from today's amount of money to give to income assistance? Does he know that? I don't think so, because if he knew that, he wouldn't stand up and say the nonsense that he said just a few minutes ago.
What this does, this appeal board....
Oh, by the way, the member for Vancouver-Langara would have us spend not $10,000 or $20,000 to go to court but $50,000 to go to court. That's what the member for Vancouver-Langara wants to do to bring into line those issues that should be within the law.
[ Page 15276 ]
What we have proposed here, and I hope to be able to convince.... I probably will be able to work this out in committee stage, but I'm surprised at the member for Peace River North and his inability to grasp the good news in this. What we are proposing to do here is to take the appeal system out of the costly mechanisms of court. Do low-income people have enough money to go to court? No, of course they don't. What this matter is about is entrenching the tribunal system. The tribunal system is not one iota at risk here. Our government has said.... In fact, it was our former government, the New Democrat Barrett government, that brought in the tribunal system. We are committed to it as much as we were before. We are committed to a fair, consistent and effective tribunal system at the local level. However, when that tribunal system goes outside the law, when that tribunal system goes outside of the regulations and gives very limited resources to those who are not entitled to those resources, we're saying: "No, let's not make people go to court." Let's not make people go to court to bring justice, to bring the regulations into line in order to have money to give to those truly in need. What we're saying is: let's have an appeal board....
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Not hand-picked.
There's a very specific requirement to have experience dealing with income security issues, tribunal issues and administrative law. And are they going to be travelling the province? Yes. Will they visit Peace River North? Yes. Will they visit Kelowna? Yes. How much money is this going to cost the government? This is going to cost the government approximately $20,000 per year. How much does it cost to go to court on one case of illegal awarding of benefits? Some $50,000. You tell me where the logic of defending income assistance dollars for low-income people is. Is this hon. member saying that we shouldn't proceed on this basis?
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I do get exercised about this, because of the false stirring up and taking advantage of people in low-income situations and exploiting them in understanding how we best have to use the limited resources available.
We should be talking not about appeals systems that are bringing fairness to the system, not about the fact that we're actually going to compensate people who are on tribunals now but about how we move people from welfare to work -- not about how the current system has to remain status quo. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that there are income assistance dollars available, and there are people in need in this province. Our government has done more than any other government to make sure that those dollars go to the people who are in need. I find it unbelievable that anybody from the opposition would rise up and somehow say that Bill 20 does not advance the cause of spending income assistance dollars on those who are in need. It does exactly that. It continues this government's record -- exemplary record, if you ask me -- on ending fraud, abuse, waste and duplication in the system. And what it does is bring fairness back into the system, the way it was meant to be.
[9:00]
Tribunal decisions, yes; community tribunals, yes; a tribunal system that is fair, effective and consistent across this province, yes; a community tribunal system that is based and has its roots in the community, yes. A tribunal system that goes outside of the law and ignores regulations, no -- absolutely not. That's all this bill is about. That is the full extent of what this bill is about.
I hope that this opposition sees their way clear to understanding what it means to assist people who have to live on low incomes. And if they do see their way clear, they will rise up and support this piece of legislation.
You know, we talk about consultation from the opposition. There was a year-long consultation on this bill. But I'll tell you something. Consultation doesn't mean that people are allowed to get up when the consultation doesn't lead to the status quo and say: "Oh, sorry, there wasn't any consultation, because you're actually going to change things." That isn't on. The current system cannot remain. The federal government, the federal Liberals -- the aunts and uncles of this member opposite at the federal level -- have ended CAP in this country. Do I hear them rising up and crying out against the federal government? Do you know that their cousins, aunts and uncles -- the incestuous system in Ottawa -- has not bothered to entrench the tribunal appeal system in their legislation? Do I hear any criticism of that? Our government has made a commitment to continue the tribunal system. Our government has said yes to the tribunal system. Shame on them for not getting up and attacking their party in Ottawa.
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll tell you one of the reasons why I'm a little bit exercised about this. My son is really uptight about the fact that I'm here and not at home. But I considered this bill to be....
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I agree, absolutely. I'm not claiming jurisdiction in this area.
But I'm telling you, this bill is so important, and it is so important for people in responsible, opinion-leading situations to bring sane debate to this situation. Eight hundred million dollars less will have to go into income assistance by 1997-98. Our government is preparing for that in a responsible, effective, consultative and inclusive way. I suggest that the members opposite, rather than joining together in their opposition, should join together in working with us to figure out how, by 1997-98, we're going to maintain support for the 100,000 children in need and for the 50,000 single parents who have been abandoned by their spouses. We're going to use our resources to move people -- the 100,000 young people in this province -- from welfare to work.
I move second reading of Bill 20.
Motion approved on the following division:
[ Page 15277 ]
|
YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Dosanjh |
Pement |
Priddy |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Cull |
|
Clark |
MacPhail |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Beattie |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Jackson |
|
Krog |
Brewin |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
Hartley | |
|
NAYS -- 11 | ||
|
Stephens |
Tyabji |
Tanner |
|
Jarvis |
Anderson |
Symons |
|
K. Jones |
van Dongen |
de Jong |
|
Fox |
Neufeld | |
Bill 20, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I think we've made very good progress this week, and I'd just like to inform all members in advance that after private members' statements, we intend to adjourn tomorrow to help accommodate the Reform Party convention in Kamloops. I wish the four of them well.
In addition, because we've completed so much business, I move this House do now adjourn. Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 6:52 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $407,230 (continued).
L. Reid: In terms of both the minister and the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale having the last word prior to rising to report out on this committee, both of them would have us believe that they know nothing about evaluation. I can accept that. I will not begin by asking this minister if he understands what the term "methodology" means. I would simply ask him, as I pose a series of questions around evaluation, perhaps to defer to his deputy. I know that this skill set does exist within this ministry, and I would simply like some response to my questions. If the minister is unwilling or unable to respond, perhaps at a future point we can have the responses conveyed to us in some meaningful fashion.
The point I attempted to make prior to this debate was that if the evaluation was coming due March 31, 1996, then it's a reasonable question, and I stand by that. I can appreciate that this topic is not one of comfort for this minister. It is absolutely not my intent to have a debate that's completely meaningless; it simply is that this is the information that I'm being asked to provide to a number of people who work within the Ministry of Advanced Education and within programs around the ministry.
Am I comfortable with the level of response to my questions about evaluation? Up to this point, the answer has been no. This is my opportunity to acquire that information. I can assure you that it is forthcoming in no other vein or venue. When you made reference, in that slightly mocking way, to being off the mailing list, that is probably true. This is my opportunity to receive this information, and I would ask the minister to defer to his deputy in terms of my questions around evaluation.
Hon. D. Miller: We are constantly evaluating the effectiveness of our programs. I read out a rather lengthy list, which indicated amazing success with many of the programs. I want to make this commitment to the hon. member: when they are available, I'm quite prepared to share with her any evaluation of programs that we do, whether that's March of next year or next week. What more can I say?
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's commitment to provide me with these evaluation tools as they become available. What the minister suggested prior to the recess was that it is simply an inventory of the number of spaces that have been created. That was what this minister attempted to report to me, which is interesting, but I'm looking for something that's a whole lot more complex. I'm looking for a measure of success -- not that you created those spaces -- of how those students managed in those spaces and whether or not there's anything in place to decide what happens to them next. For me, it's not about funding a seat in an institution. Certainly the minister can choose, if he wishes, to again read me the list of 9,100 spaces, etc., etc. But that's not what I'm looking for. I really want some sense that at the end of 1996 we have something that's tangible that will allow decisions to be made on the future of those programs -- whether refinements are required and what the next step might be. If the only measure in another year is an inventory measure around the number of spaces, that will not have answered my questions.
I appreciate what the minister has said, but the minister knows I have that information; I know how many spaces have been created in those programs. Frankly, that's the level of information I've received up to this point. I'm hoping that during the next hour or so, we can extend the discussion around what comes next. How are you measuring success? Again, hon. minister, it has to be more than the number of seats you've created. If I can ask the minister to comment.
Hon. D. Miller: While I don't entirely disagree, it does strike me -- in my, perhaps, limited way -- that when a system has traditionally created about 2,500 or 2,600 new
[ Page 15278 ]
spaces annually and we have created over 9,000, one might interpret that as some modest measure of success. I certainly do myself. In a system where the FTE cost is traditionally close to $8,000, we have brought it down in a couple of years to about $6,800. I might conclude that that's a measure of success. Indeed, I think most rational people would.
Moving to the issue of the specific programs, I've attempted to advise the member that the general approach with respect to Skills Now is, as we say, real skills for the real world. I've outlined how, at the community college level, we have created six new applied programs, and we intend to expand that. Those programs are directly linked to the demands that our economy is making. On and on it goes. Now there may be some areas where there's disagreement, such as expanding apprenticeship training opportunities. I know my hon. critic has characterized apprenticeship as outdated, and maybe we just have a disagreement there. But I did make an announcement a short while ago on mandatory certification of three automotive trades, which we estimate will lead to an additional 600 apprentices in the field. I would say that that's a measure of success.
I could run through all of these again; I don't really wish to. I think I read into the record what I considered to be an objective measure of success or failure. On balance, while one is never completely satisfied, I am satisfied that the approach we're taking under Skills Now, the programs we've designed, the delivery of those programs and the results of that delivery have all been, in many, many ways, an unqualified success. It's not just me who thinks that. When I consult with the partners, whether they be the institutions or whether they be the business community, I get very, very positive feedback.
So I really don't know what more I can say. As I indicated in my previous answer, if there are evaluations that we undertake, whatever they might be, whether they are on all of the subjects that the critic talks about or other subjects that she hasn't mentioned, I'm quite prepared to make that information available. We have nothing that we don't want to make public. Indeed, under this government, everything is public. I'm not saying that I'll wait for FOI requests; I'm quite prepared to make this information available.
We are on the right track in British Columbia. There's absolutely no question about it. And I've got a letter -- I didn't bring it with me -- from my counterpart in Nova Scotia, and he is effusive in his praise for the Skills Now approach. I think he's a Liberal -- not that that's material to the discussion. But I think, honestly, that we are on the right track in British Columbia. I don't think anybody has taken as comprehensive an approach to the whole issue of post-secondary education and training as we have. I remind the member that it was put together with the partners that I've talked about.
[7:00]
In terms of elaborate detail, I can give the member some advice to those kinds of questions, but maybe that's not my role here. We are quite prepared to share all of that information. If you're going to ask me for some absolute detail about some minor issue in the ministry, I'm afraid that I might have to search long and hard through these books or whatever. If I don't have the answer, I'll make sure I get it to you, but.... I mean, I'd like to debate the kinds of policy issues which I think are quite important to British Columbians. As I indicated before, I think they're threatened, and I think that those are the kinds of issues that we should be canvassing in these estimates. Certainly if the member has criticisms about the Skills Now program, I would be happy to hear them. If we're not achieving what we think we should be achieving, or indeed what the member thinks we should be achieving, let's hear about it. Let's find out where those problem areas are. I'll leave it at that.
L. Reid: I'm simply asking this minister to report on how he's measuring the Skills Now program. The minister is willing to suggest that the cost of an FTE is closer to $6,000 than $8,000. He sees that as a measure of success -- and the number of spaces created. We can agree on that point. We now have new spaces and we're funding those spaces.
You make the comment: "The results of the delivery are an unqualified success." I want to know what you're basing that on. How are you arriving at that conclusion? It seems to me that it's very anecdotal at this stage. You suggest that you're receiving positive feedback. I appreciate that; it's probably quite wonderful. But what's next? This has to be a discussion in terms of the number of dollars that are expended. That's bigger than anecdotal feedback.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't think it's anecdotal; I'd say it's hard statistics with respect to measures of success.
I think the member has kind of backed into a real question: what do we do in the future? I must confess that in some respects I don't have the absolute answer to that, because we're facing some real threats in terms of federal cuts. I'm not certain how we are going to deal with that, how students are going to deal with that in terms of tuition issues and how institutions will deal with that. There are some uncertainties that we face in the future.
It is our desire to continue with the thrust of the programs that we've developed now. I would say they have been a success. We have tested these with the public, with our partners, business people, labour people and educators. A college president tells me that we're absolutely on the right track. A business leader tells one of your caucus members -- as I understand happened a day or so ago -- that Skills Now is bang on, exactly what we should be doing. I take it those are anecdotal; fair enough. But I have some difficulty with suggesting that we should not give any weight to them.
The thrust of the program is there; the achievements of the program are there; the program descriptions are there. We will give you a report on our methodology if you're doing some assessment. You can have it all -- anything you want. I'm a little baffled here. I'm trying to answer the question, and I'm not quite certain what the question is. But I've made an attempt, so I guess we'll carry on.
L. Reid: I will thank the minister, because I do think it's a package and so far neither of us have diminished anecdotal reporting. The number of seats and how you're funding them, I think, are part of the package. If this has an expanded version at some point and the minister offers to provide it, I welcome that. From the minister's comments today, I'm not convinced that it does, but I think it's absolutely critical that it does. I will not belabour the point, except to say that I think it's absolutely necessary. I trust that we can ensure that there is some ongoing communication around this. This is one of the elements that is currently missing from Skills Now.
[ Page 15279 ]
It just makes good sense to report out factually and move beyond anecdotes. Anecdotal reporting is one of the stages of evaluation -- there is no question about that -- but it's only one. If you're having the pie divided into six or eight pieces, we've only covered three of those pieces in terms of anecdotal evaluation, the number of seats and how you're funding them. There is a lot more ground to be covered. I can appreciate that it's not going to be possible for us to cover it this evening, but I very much want to go on record that the only way you improve a public system is by measuring it. That's the only way you have an opportunity to refine ongoing practice. You have to come back to the table and say: "This didn't necessarily work. How can we improve it? How can we move ahead and make some changes in it?" You can't do that if you don't have that baseline information or don't establish any benchmarks. I know that a number of institutions are looking at creating benchmarks around program delivery. I think that the natural extension of that is that the ministry has those around programs that they take responsibility for.
It alarms me that it's a discussion that is not well understood, because I think it's a trend that is happening across this land. Everybody is looking at the best possible use for the public tax dollar. That was one of my concerns about this program: it was putting the cart before the horse. You weren't really clear about where you wanted to go or how you would measure success along the way. You leapt into it, and you're now trying to backfill, find out what the targets were and how you measure success along the road.
I can appreciate that, and I can probably appreciate it for another few months. I can't maintain this reassurance around it until March 1996. That's a long, long time. I will certainly accept the minister's offer to send me ongoing reports and evaluations around Skills Now. It bears looking at. If it's important enough to expend tax dollars on, it's important enough to do the job well and understand how to refine practice.
The minister would somehow say that this is bigger than an administrative argument. This is an argument around implementation. Does administration figure prominently in that? It absolutely has to. How you implement the best ideas in the world determine their success. I have some concerns around implementation if we are not measuring success.
I can appreciate that this is a complex topic, but I foresee the time when it will become the norm, no matter what ministry you are discussing -- that there will be some benchmarks and that the minister will come to the table and say: "This is what we hope to achieve, and this is how we are reporting out on it." Those will be more than measures of inventory. I think they are useful, but I think they are just part of the package.
In terms of where we should go from here to continue with the estimates debate, I have a number of questions that are specific to the funding of various aspects of the ministry. I'll touch on those, then perhaps we can lead into the four components of the Skills Now program and touch on some of those issues in debate.
What I want to touch on first is actually from the supplement to the estimates. It talks about administration and support service in 1994-95. It appears to be up $543,000 over the estimated amount. It seems to me that this is a fairly sharp increase. I'm wondering what that looks like in terms of additional FTEs. Does that account for additional FTEs in the system? Are those new staff people required to coordinate the Skills Now initiatives? Does that include any link with the Ministry of Education?
Hon. D. Miller: While my staff are looking for the specifics, I want to say that I reject what my critic has just said; I think she's wrong. I'm not so much interested in looking at the minute little bits as I am in looking at the broader system, the imperatives of that system and the needs of British Columbians and the British Columbian economy. We look at many issues when we initially design these programs -- not the least of which is cost, because there are those who would not support the public system. I think that is regrettable. Just to illustrate the point, you know that the federal Liberals, for example, cut the funding for some of the English language skill training being delivered by Vancouver Community College. I was very disturbed, as were the administration of the college and the students. They did that on the basis that they were not prepared to "pay for the benefit package that the instructors had," notwithstanding the fact that Vancouver Community College pioneered the delivery of this particular type of training under the LINC program. Notwithstanding the calls from the opposition to cut spending to post-secondary education, the decision I made was to go in and fill the vacuum created by the federal government. I think that's regrettable, because the programs were eminently worthwhile and the approach used by the federal government was absolutely wrongheaded and dumb.
Again, I was a bit disturbed; I'm quite prepared to deal with those issues. One always likes to think that regardless of political differences, British Columbians will stick together on these kinds of issues. I was a bit disappointed that not one Liberal in British Columbia, not one provincial Liberal, stood up and supported the efforts of this government in restoring funding to allow the Vancouver Community College to continue to deliver that kind of programming.
I also it's important that public institutions be accountable and efficient. In that regard, I've explained to the member that the approach we've taken this year was not to throw money at a problem but rather to challenge the institutions to be more efficient and to accommodate more students with less money. I've described how we did that. I've described the success of that program with respect to new FTEs. The member may or may not be aware -- I don't know. I don't know what her own research has led her to understand with respect to our public institutions. She clearly has a research staff, and this information is freely available.
If you look at the cost of delivering post-secondary education today in our public institutions, it's true that the cost per FTE is dramatically lower than it was. I will cite some figures for the member. In 1980-81 -- using that as a benchmark year -- it cost $100 to deliver a post-secondary education. That same education is being delivered today for $75. That's a remarkable measure of efficiency. I repeat: this is not my opportunity to question the critics, but it does appear to me to be rather telling that any time I've challenged the critics to put a position forward, they refuse to do so.
K. Jones: Why don't you put your own position forward and stop worrying about ours?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, would you please protect me from this vicious heckling by the member from wherever -- Surrey?
[ Page 15280 ]
The Chair: Hon. gentlemen, there are lots of opportunities.
Hon. D. Miller: As I said previously, in response to a question that was asked of me: the only time a Liberal MLA in British Columbia has ever said anything positive about what we're doing was when I went to that member's riding and announced a new technical university, and he came up to me and said: "Mr. Minister, you're doing absolutely the right thing. Thank you very much." That's true. He did it; he said that.
K. Jones: You should enjoy that; it doesn't happen often.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure he was just as disappointed as I was to hear his colleague, my hon. critic, be critical of that decision.
K. Jones: She's doing a good job.
Hon. D. Miller: It left me a bit confused, hon. Chair.
K. Jones: She's keeping you accountable; that's what she's doing.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't know about the Liberal caucus; I can't speak for the Liberal caucus.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, we have a certain amount of decorum and certain rules. I can allow a certain amount of freedom here, but let's be reasonable.
K. Jones: We'll be reasonable if the minister is reasonable.
The Chair: We are asking all members to be reasonable. That means that whoever the designated spokesperson is, we'll hear from them. There's lots of opportunity to get into this debate.
[7:15]
Hon. D. Miller: The specific question was something to do with $500,000.
L. Reid: Yes, $543,000.
An Hon. Member: It was so long ago, so far away. Hon. D. Miller: It must be the hour -- it's starting to appear funny to me, too.
Our FTE base has been the same. I think we brought some staff on when we were developing the kind of ambitious new programs we have around Skills Now, but staff have been brought on throughout the year. The expenditure requirement is obviously based on that -- when staff come on board. That's the information if the member understands it.
L. Reid: You know, I do understand that when you hire more people, it costs more money. I want to know how many more were hired.
Hon. D. Miller: There were 36 additional FTEs as a result of Skills Now.
L. Reid: Just to wrap up this particular discussion around $543,000, I'm interested in knowing if that takes into account any individuals who would move between ministries under secondment from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. What portion of those dollars would be spent on people who are on contract and are not considered full-time-equivalents?
Hon. D. Miller: No. As for the FTEs: administrative support services, 6; skills development, 12; and some additional FTEs with respect to the Labour Force Development Board. That gives a total of 36.
L. Reid: I have just one question regarding capital debt servicing. It seemed to fluctuate in the previous year. The last estimate is 11.4 percent, and the year before 15.7 percent. In terms of getting a handle on that kind of debt servicing and the actual costs to the system, does the minister have a strategy in place to look at how best to incorporate that into overall spending?
Interjection.
L. Reid: Since you said please, I will. In terms of capital debt servicing, certainly our records show that last estimates were up 11.4 percent, and the year before 15.8 percent. What would the percentage increase of capital debt servicing be this year and what's the strategy around incorporating that into the overall spending?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that that percentage is a reflection of the interest rates.
Your final question was: what do we anticipate this year? We anticipate 11.4 percent in 1995-96.
L. Reid: I'm looking at a 5.7 percent increase in staffing costs in the skills development programs. The minister made mention of 36 full-time-equivalents, I think it was. A 5.7 percent increase in staffing costs seems high, and I will take the minister's clarification on that. I'm interested to know the actual breakdown. What I'm attempting to pull out of this discussion is the actual funding commitment to the program. Right now, I'm looking at the program as the hiring of a great number of people to deliver future programs that are basically funded out of ministry operations, because the people actually delivering the programs -- those who are standing in front of students in all those settings -- would be funded typically through the colleges that they currently exist in.
Hon. D. Miller: The two areas with respect to staffing really are welfare-to-work -- the member is aware that the programming from the Social Services ministry was transferred over -- and apprenticeship training. Both of those are not delivery of training as done by the institutions but rather the organization of the system, and, of necessity with respect to both, staff are required to make the delivery work.
You know, some of the programs.... If you look over the 35 issues under Skills Now, we had always understood that the ability to deliver on those programs varied. In other words, where it was a direct delivery of an educational program through an institution, it was simply a matter of funding, and the program was there and delivered. I have read the numbers to the member that indicate a pretty high degree of
[ Page 15281 ]
success. On the other hand, where the delivery was contingent on developing the system, the results would not be as forthcoming or as dramatic as in the post-secondary system, where they were fairly dramatic.
Apprenticeship is one of those areas where, because of absolute neglect by governments in the past, the system had fallen into disrepair. Our ability to ramp that up if you like -- to increase the number of apprentices and apprenticeable occupations and move into the schools -- as we have done in terms of apprentice systems, was limited by our ability to get out there and actually develop that system.
We will see better results in this fiscal year on the apprenticeship side. We have seen dramatic results on the post-secondary delivery side. Similarly, we will see in this fiscal year fairly dramatic results on the welfare-to-work program, where we are in fact moving people off the welfare system either into institutionally based training or directly into the workplace. I cited for the member programs such as secretarial training -- those kinds of programs where we have a high degree of cooperation and collaboration with the business community, and that continues.
There are some very exciting developments we are working on right now that I can't really say much about, except that I anticipate being able to make some announcements in the relatively near future that would indicate an approach to this topic that has never been tried, and I think it is something all British Columbians will be quite supportive of. I'm sure the member will, too.
L. Reid: I certainly look forward to the announcements. I will be pleased to receive them.
In terms of the question around welfare-to-work, the minister responded that the program had been transferred from Social Services. Were the staff people supporting that program in Social Services transferred to the Ministry of Skills and Training as well? Could the minister comment on that, as well as on his other example, which was apprenticeship training? Do those people now become full-time-equivalent individuals within the Ministry of Skills and Training, and does the Ministry of Skills and Training become their new employer? What I'm attempting to get at is whether any of these individuals have been seconded from various ministries and will be moving back at some point that has yet to be determined.
Hon. D. Miller: About 140 came over from Social Services. I don't have a number here on apprenticeship; we may get it before we're through. Apprenticeship has always been with us. We have added additional FTEs -- my staff tell me three, but I think it's more than that, because we've put more field counsellors in place.
If you're going to boost apprenticeship training, you need people at the field level for a number of reasons. One is to start to work in a better way with employers, in terms of encouraging employers to take on indentured apprentices. The other is the service of those apprentices when they have been taken on. There is a requirement for regular visits to the workplace to make sure that employers have a training plan in place and that there are log books plus related questions of timing in terms of access to the community colleges for the training part of the apprenticeship, and those kinds of things. Maybe we'll get a better number, but there are 140 out of Social Services.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his response. The other section I wanted to canvass was what appears to be a very significant increase around boards and fees within the ministry. It appears to be a 92.6 percent increase. So I'm wondering if the minister could expand on the expenditure of the Labour Force Development Board. Or is there another board that's going to be created to account for this very, very significant increase?
Hon. D. Miller: The increase in FTEs is related to the employment standards branch -- seven -- and to the Labour Force Development Board. Again, the critic talks about evaluation. No doubt people are aware that we have established the Labour Force Development Board, comprised of representatives from the employer community, labour and equity groups. They have done, as I indicated earlier in these estimates, a preliminary analysis of the Skills Now program, and they will continue. They are actually in place to advise me on the training requirements, both of individuals, through labour and equity groups, and of business.
One of the things I'm cognizant of.... I referred in some earlier comments to mismatch and the absolute need to ensure that, with respect to building our economy, we are training people with the skills that are required by those sectors of the economy that have opportunity. There are many. Again, I refer to the Liberal position paper, which I think is grossly in error with respect to what's happening in our economy. We are not looking for a post-industrial economy; that's nonsense. Over time, if we accept that sort of post-industrial model, it will do irreparable harm to our economy.
Our economy will grow and prosper, and we'll have a very strong base if we consider it from an entirely different point of view, which is to take the industries that we have in this province -- take the heart and the strength that we have in this province -- and realize that through adding knowledge and technology, we can make those industries into world-class, competitive industries. Some are there now. That retains -- and this is fundamentally important -- an industrial base. Any economy that loses sight of the need to maintain an industrial base is an economy that, over time, is subject to the whims of whatever happens globally. With this particular economy -- given the kind of growth and strength we have -- that approach will lead to irreparable harm. It will lead to a downward spiral. One only has to visit the manufacturing plants in the technology sector to realize what I am saying. Go to Norsat International Inc., where we made our announcement on the technical university, and you will see a plant that produces components for satellites and the communications industry. They manufacture the components; that's an industry. Go to Avcorp, where I was last week....
L. Reid: It's in my riding.
Hon. D. Miller: It's in the member's riding, so the member should understand that it is a manufacturing plant that requires people with a high degree of skill. It manufactures components for the aircraft industry. They are very aggressive, very competitive and very smart. They are going to grow and prosper, and they are going to add new jobs and new opportunities. We've fallen down on the skills that they require in people. We have not been training people in those areas.
[7:30]
[ Page 15282 ]
In a very conscious, deliberate way, we're asking those kinds of sectors: "What are your human resource needs?" We're saying to the institutions.... When I spoke to the Advanced Education Council of B.C. a couple of nights ago, I cited that particular one. I said to the board chairs, the presidents and the CEOs at the Advanced Education Council: "Get out to those companies, go into those plants, go talk to those employers, find out what their skill needs are and make sure that your institution is in a position where you can deliver -- and sometimes in a partnership way." I think I've strayed off topic. I just get carried away when I talk about post-secondary education.
L. Reid: Since the minister strolled into my riding in terms of Avcorp Industries, I would certainly support his contention that it is doing an outstanding job. It's a glorious company that has bright, articulate individuals who will ensure that the bases of technology are in place and ready to roll. I have every possible regard for that company, because I believe it wants to form a very, very useful partnership.
In terms of the question I posed to the minister, which again he did not answer in any detail.... Let me bring him back to the question about a 92.6 percent increase around boards and fees. The minister gave two examples: employment standards and the B.C. Labour Force Development Board. If he could break down that percentage increase between those two programs, it would be most helpful.
Hon. D. Miller: We will attempt to obtain that highly detailed information. If we don't do it in the period of these estimates, I guarantee that we will forward it to you.
L. Reid: Another increase that intrigues me is the increase in advertising and publications from $10,000 to $275,200. That is a hugely significant increase, and perhaps the minister could respond with how that is in the best interests of funding students. What are we getting for that increase?
Hon. D. Miller: Quite frankly, I think our advertising budget is too small. I think we should be doing more advertising. We are advertising Skills Now. Members may have seen the five ads, which represent a variety of people around this province. I can assure the members that we will be doing more of that. There is crying need to inform the public about the changes that are taking place and to inform our young people about the opportunities that exist in this province. I'm making a serious commitment. I'm fighting for more because I think we should do even more public advertising of these wonderful programs under Skills Now.
I think it's important that the public, and particularly young people, understand the kinds of opportunities that are available. I may be limited in my budget, and there may have been an increase, but in my view it wasn't enough.
L. Reid: There also appears to be a 44 percent increase in building occupancy charges, office furniture and equipment. It certainly seems to me that.... Indeed, the minister made mention of 36 additional FTEs. Does that necessitate a 44 percent increase?
Hon. D. Miller: I think the answer is with respect to the takeover of the Social Services staff I previously referred to -- 140 FTEs -- and the ability to deliver in the field.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification.
I have one last question on this section. If we talked about percentage increases overall, what percentage increase would relate to the Public Sector Employers' Council, or does it? Does that fall anywhere in your jurisdiction?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
R. Chisholm: First, I'd like to ask the minister -- and he doesn't have to give me the list tonight -- for a list of what Skills Now projects are authorized or ongoing in the Chilliwack constituency. If he doesn't have it here, he could get back to me later as to what is going on. I'd be most appreciative.
The main portion of this question was.... I'm looking for the minister's concepts, ideas and overall approach to a community like Chilliwack, which is beginning to need retooling due to having the armed forces base leave. Forestry has been downgraded. We've seen industries such as FraserVale and Fraser Valley Bus Lines leave. We have a lot of people in need of retraining, and I'm just wondering what the minister's vision is on that. It may not this year, but if the base does leave, what role would his ministry play in some sort of community skills assessment, which, after that, might to lead to training for new jobs in the future for this community to enhance it down the road.
Hon. D. Miller: Our general approach is to be very, very sensitive to the needs of communities. There's a variety of approaches.
Let me first of all respond to the hon. member with regard to specifics in your constituency. I don't have that here and we will get that to you. In some ways, it's a limiting type of question. Let me try to give a broader response. For example, when we announced Skills Now, I know I phoned a number of the media around British Columbia, particularly in small towns. I was frequently asked: "What's in it for my town?" In other words, they wanted me to say: "Well, here's a dollar amount. Here's some tangible dollar amounts that are going to be specific to your community."
I would encourage members to look at it slightly more broadly. For example, expanding degree-granting authority at the community college level -- University College of the Fraser Valley is one of those areas -- means that students in your region can get a degree at that institution. It means they don't have to go to Simon Fraser, UBC, UVic or, indeed, up north to UNBC. That's an advantage to young people in your region. By offering new programs at the community college level, there are enhanced opportunities for young people, indeed for all people, in your particular constituency to get the kinds of skills that lead them to permanent employment.
Where there is a dramatic incident with respect to the economy, such as a closure of a base or an industry, we will join in on an industrial adjustment program with the federal government that considers the needs of individuals with respect to any opportunities for retraining, upgrading -- you name it. There's a number of examples around the province where that is in fact taking place. We did a major IAS in the Elk Valley as a result of some of the closures in the coal industry there. They typically are ongoing all around the province.
In addition to that, we have developed a new concept under Skills Now, the skills centres. Skills centres are not
[ Page 15283 ]
competing with colleges, but rather are centres under the collective ownership, if you like, of a community-based board that we say requires the participation of business, labour, educators, community leaders and others. The role of that board is to evaluate the needs of individuals with respect to training requirements and to assess the needs of the community and employers in the community with respect to what they require in terms of skills training and to then go out and play a brokerage role. We encourage that to be done with the community colleges; to deliver the specific training that's been identified through the process I talked about. We announced 14 of those last year. Some of those have their doors open, and they're up and running. Some of them are still in the development phase, and additional communities will be identified this fiscal year where that same process will take place. We will have, we hope, about 20 of those centres open around the province. They seem to be very well received in communities. I think they play the role that the member talked about and give that ability, on a corroborative basis, to communities to identify their needs and then to actually start delivering training in those specific areas.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the information. Hopefully, your ministry will look kindly upon this area, because we are going to see some traumatic events in our area. Even without the base going, we're looking at about 700 jobs that have been lost already, and we have another almost 1,500 more to go, depending upon when the federal government moves. We will definitely be in need of these skills centres and whatever assistance you could bring to that community.
Along the same lines, I'd like to discuss a program we have right now called Job Fair -- it used to be called Career Fair. It was a once-a-year program when all the schools and businesses went to one location, set up booths, taught resume-writing, how to go into job interviews and all this type of thing and what was available in the market. It is a program they've been running for about three years now. They applied for moneys to help them out. The program services Mission, Boston Bar, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and all these schools come into one location. They target industries coming in and tell these individuals -- not so much kids going to university but the people who might not get to university -- what they require.
They applied for a grant of $25,000 this year, but they haven't heard anything back. They've gone through the members for Yale-Lillooet and for Mission-Kent, but they haven't received any news. This is going to happen on November 8, 1995. Could the minister look into this? They've been working through Duncan McCrea; I think you might know the name. They haven't received anything, but they were hearing some rumours that they might get $10,000 toward this.
If the minister could look into the situation and possibly help them out, I think this would help in the scenario that we are seeing in Chilliwack, too. It could help out with some of the older people who have lost their jobs in the last six months. I will just leave that with you. I won't expect you to answer now, because you probably won't have the answers at this time, but if you could get back to me, I'd be most appreciative.
My next question concerns preferency transfer payments of the federal government to the provincial government. How much of the transfer payment from the federal government are we actually applying to ensure that tuition fees are within reach? Taking into account the lesser amounts coming from the federal government, how are we going to try to keep our tuition fees down when we aren't going to have the resources to help us in this area? Maybe the minister could comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll check on the Job Fair program and let the member know very quickly.
Like the member, I also have a serious situation in my constituency because of the federal decision to downsize or to close bases, which will lead to the closure of DND Masset. In that case, the base represents almost 50 percent of the local economy. So the member and I share.... Perhaps the impact is less traumatic in his constituency than it is in mine, particularly with a very small community with a small community with a small tax base. In fact, we have an industrial adjustment committee in operation in Masset now.
The federal cuts are a serious problem. I did talk about them earlier, and I've tried to encourage all British Columbians to speak out for British Columbia on this issue, and I have been somewhat disappointed by the lack of response, particularly from members opposite. I would have thought they would be the first to speak out for British Columbians. The cuts are dramatic. The cuts potentially will result in a significant increase in tuition fees. We're in a bit of a dilemma, and I don't mind confessing that I don't have the answers to all those problems. I think that it begs from some kind of rational debate.
[7:45]
On the one hand we have made, I think, quite a good commitment to post-secondary education and training for all the reasons that are so obvious. That's been pretty well received. I read into the record earlier some of the results of that. As I said, I think we're absolutely on the right track. But having taken those measures, we're now faced with these looming federal cuts. The Canada health and social transfer is, no matter how nice the words may sound, simply a dramatic reduction in transfer payments to British Columbia and to all provinces by the federal government.
How are we going to handle that? How are we going to handle that impact on medicare? How are we going to handle the impact on our post-secondary institutions? I guess what's even more problematic in the face of these federal cuts is that the Liberal and Reform members opposite have said -- quite loudly and publicly -- that the federal government didn't cut enough. Therefore they've weakened our ability to argue as British Columbians.
We appear to be the only party that's standing up and saying: "Look, we don't think you're doing the right thing." We pointed out to the federal government some areas where they can make some savings with respect to subsidies to business and everything else. They chose to ignore our advice and make the cuts to medicare, post-secondary education and social services. I've been meeting with the system partners and with students. I have a meeting coming up with the university council, I've met with the Advanced Education Council. I've met with the alma mater society and with the Canadian Federation of Students. We're going to collectively look at how we can deal with this rather huge problem.
I'm going to resist as much as I can, but in the absence of the revenue that we would expect from the federal side, is it
[ Page 15284 ]
reasonable to say that British Columbia should simply make that up? Should we increase our spending to make up for that loss of federal revenue? I don't think so. I think that would be self-defeating. That would simply be acknowledging that it's okay to transfer federal costs to the provincial level. I don't accept that. On the other hand....
K. Jones: What's the exact amount of money?
Hon. D. Miller: The exact amount? We're talking over $800 million, my friend. I'm glad to see that the Liberals are now even slightly curious, displaying even a slight curiosity about these massive cuts on the part of the federal Liberals. If they're telling me that they don't know what the amount is, having sat as elected politicians in this province in the face of all the media accounts, in the face of all the information.... To have a member of the Liberal caucus ask me across the floor of this committee room, "How much are the cuts going to be?" is absolutely appalling. It is absolutely appalling that they haven't taken the time to even try to determine how much the cuts are going to be.
My job is not to educate Liberals, hon. Chair. My job is to fight Liberals, because they're prepared to undermine our post-secondary system and they're prepared to undermine our medicare system. They can sink on their own; they don't need my help.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order. Hon. members, enough.
Hon. D. Miller: Where was I before I was so rudely interrupted?
K. Jones: You haven't answered anything for the last five minutes anyway, so why are you...?
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. members. There is a job to be done in this chamber, and I am endeavouring to do my best to make sure that the words that want to be said get said. I appreciate that there are those who would like to throw in a few on the side -- I understand about heckling -- but when you can't even hear what it is that is supposed to be said, I think we have some difficulties. I urge us all...
Interjection.
The Chair: That is not the issue. The issue concerns voices going through the microphone and people saying things. Whether you agree or disagree with what's being said, the hon. minister has the floor. There are ample opportunities for others to have the floor, too. Hon. D. Miller: I have some graphs. I don't know if I can find them in these notes, but the federal share of post-secondary education funding and medicare funding has been declining dramatically over the last number of years. In fact, British Columbia is about $2 billion poorer as a result of those cuts. We are facing a reduction in cash transfers of about $800 million over the next two years. I would remind members that the provincial Liberals have said that those cuts are not deep enough. They have abandoned....
R. Chisholm: You mentioned the $800 million cuts in transfer payments. It's something like our bases, I guess -- we hope to hell that it's never going to happen, but there is a realism out there, too, that it might possibly happen, so we have to face reality. You said that you've gone out and talked to students and different organizations on how to curtail the rising cost situation, yet you have this looming in the background. I'm just wondering: is there anything the province can do to minimize any of these increases? Will there be any money from those transfer payments going into scholarships and that type of thing? Exactly what is the province planning right now to try to offset this reduction in transfer payments?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, we've not given up in our fight with the federal government. In respect to the system partners and the people I've mentioned previously -- the institutions, college and university students and others -- I have advised them that I want to see them participate in that fight. I think there's a real willingness for them to do that. We will collectively determine how we will deal with the reduced budgets. As I said, I don't mind standing up and saying that I don't have a simple answer. There is no simple answer to this problem, but we're going to work together and do our best to maintain a system that we think is worth maintaining.
R. Chisholm: Since students can no longer apply for Canadian scholarships, and tuition rates are threatening to be increased, as we have just discussed, how are our students going to be able to compete with foreign students in their own universities and get in beyond the door in this kind of environment? Are you doing anything to protect seats for our students? They will be at an added disadvantage, obviously, if tuition fees are at the level we're thinking.
Hon. D. Miller: The issue of foreign students is not, in my view, problematic. In fact, I think there's a benefit from having students from foreign countries come to British Columbia to study -- as I think there is a benefit to have British Columbian students go abroad to study -- in terms of their personal experience. Particularly in the case of the Pacific Rim, this creates opportunities over time in respect to trade, etc. Foreign students are here at full-cost recovery and therefore are not a drain, if you like, on provincial coffers.
We are witnessing, as a result of Skills Now.... As a result of the fairly dramatic increase in the number of full-time spaces, we've seen an easing off of the so-called waiting lists. In fact, there were spaces available in some institutions last year that weren't filled. We estimated systemwide that we reduced the so-called turnaways by about 60 percent. If we continue with Skills Now, we think we'll have a greater impact on that.
That's evidenced by the University of Victoria here on the southern part of Vancouver Island, which has now reduced the grade point average. The member might recall that three or four years ago the grade point averages at the universities were so high that the average student wasn't getting the opportunity to attend. Now they are. Hopefully that will encourage more of those students to go into our post-secondary institutions. I think it's healthy that we have the kind of mix that I've talked about, and I don't think foreign students prevent or impair the ability of domestic students to attend our institutions.
R. Chisholm: How does the minister and his government plan to increase the seats available in the apprenticeship programs, given the move to mandatory trades qualifications? If he could give us his opinion on that one, please.
[ Page 15285 ]
Hon. D. Miller: We're doing it in a number of ways. One, the impact of mandatory certification -- the one we have announced so far, and there are more coming, by the way -- is in the three automotive trades. Actually, it's quite an interesting story. We did some research on it. We went back to 1945, I think it was, where the government at that time indicated that they thought that would be a desirable thing to do. Another little historical note, if you like, is that in 1963 the minister at that time was Leslie Peterson, who coincidentally also held the dual portfolio of Labour and Education. So there is a precedent in British Columbia for the approach we are taking. Mr. Peterson indicated in 1963 that it was desirable to have the automotive trades designated as mandatory certification.
We have finally carried out the 1963 agenda of the Social Credit government or party. We did it in conjunction with the Automotive Retailers' Association. They were delighted that that change had finally been made. We estimate jointly that it will potentially produce about 600 new apprentices in those three trade areas. So mandatory certification can have some bearing on increased apprenticeship opportunities.
Two, we are approaching business and industry in British Columbia now, and through the expanded field staff we have put in place we are essentially saying to them: "Look, we think you've got an obligation to train British Columbians in these skill areas." We have a skill gap in some trades. My own, a millwright, is a good example. Some of the people in that trade are in their mid-to late fifties. It's pretty clear that without new people coming on, there will be a skill gap. I don't want us to resort to what we always have done, which is to go outside our borders and import those skilled tradespeople from somewhere else. I want those opportunities for British Columbians.
Three, we are working with selected industries to designate new apprenticable occupations. We really have lagged quite far behind other jurisdictions. We have the traditional trades here in British Columbia, but we've not looked at the impact technology has made in some of those areas and at the need to develop new and different trades. Some are fairly traditional. For example, some ideas being pushed around are to make forest workers an apprenticable occupation; to look at making some of the tourism jobs that exist in British Columbia, which are very important to the tourism economy, apprenticable occupations; and to look.... I mentioned the Avcorp experience, and the airframe technician was one of the newest trades developed in British Columbia.
There are other opportunities, so we are working with those industries very closely. I've allocated new staff to the apprenticeship branch. I hired some people from out of province who have particular expertise, and they have been going around British Columbia talking to people in schools and businesses. As I indicated earlier, I don't expect to see the fruits of that to appear quickly, but I'm quite convinced that the track we are on will lead to a significant increase in the number of apprenticeship opportunities. That is good news for British Columbians and particularly for young British Columbians.
[8:00]
Finally, we have introduced apprenticeship programs in our high schools this year on a pilot basis, and that will expand in September when new enrolments take place. I'm not certain of the number of students who might end up in apprenticeship programs, but I think it might potentially be as high as a couple of hundred.
I have also announced, in conjunction with the federal minister -- although it was our idea, and I was delighted to.... I have a bit of a bone to pick. It's fine for the federal minister to come in and agree with our bursary program. We have announced a $1,000 bursary program so that those students in high school who go into an apprenticeship program are entitled to receive a $1,000 bursary when they come out and go into an apprenticeship. The federal government liked it so much that they came in and said they would pay half. What they didn't tell me when we made our joint announcement downstairs is that they are going to pay half of about $350,000, but at the same time they have, as we speak, pulled out about $30 million worth of training from British Columbia -- $30 million. Many of the programs that used to be funded by Human Resources Development Canada have been abandoned.
I understand that they are also contemplating and may have already made a decision to stop funding apprentices for their first two weeks in school. Apprenticeship is a period of on-the-job training coupled with about a five-week period of school every year that is delivered through the community colleges or BCIT. Typically, the apprentices' expenses while at school are covered through Canada Manpower -- CECs, Canada employment centres. I understand that the federal government has made a decision to pull back the funding for the first two weeks. You can imagine how much an apprentice having to go out and live for four or five weeks, probably away from home relies on the federal support. Lo and behold, the government is pulling out, as I understand it, which is just plain dumb.
These are some of the frustrations that I have in addition to the frustrations I occasionally experience in this chamber, and that is why I am very saddened by the inability of the Liberal caucus to understand these issues and to stand up and fight for British Columbians.
K. Jones: What representation have you made?
The Chair: The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale can have an opportunity to enter the debate in an appropriate fashion at any time. I call upon, now, the hon. member for Chilliwack.
R. Chisholm: I asked this next question of the minister last year, too, and I would like to approach the subject again this year.
Hon. D. Miller: Tell me what my answer was.
R. Chisholm: We'll try to. It's about a potential agriculture college, and I think the minister can remember me discussing it. We even discussed it in the House when Royal Roads and all this type of thing came up. We have an industry here that has a $13 billion infrastructure and a turnover of $1.5 billion in the province every year, and we have this piecemeal agriculture program in the university colleges. It is very much piecemeal. I asked you last year if, in the vision of higher education, you saw eventually having an agriculture college, especially when you consider that a province like New
[ Page 15286 ]
Brunswick, with a population of 600,000, has one, and we, with a population of 3.5 million, don't have one. Our agriculture industry happens to be about ten times the size of New Brunswick's. There are great opportunities there now, whether you talk about horticulture, tree fruits or whatever area. There is great potential for us to get into different markets and do well by them. For every 5 percent that we end up spending here, that's another 5,000 jobs in this province.
I'm wondering if you see in your vision of higher education, eventually, an agriculture college that could possibly be a joint effort with, let's say, the Agassiz Research Station and use some of those facilities. Or do you see an agriculture college in this province at all?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I was half joking. You should remind me of what my answer was last year.
We certainly have not discussed or contemplated a separate agricultural college. We encourage very strongly through Skills Now and working with the institutions that they in fact develop courses and train people in areas where there is demand. We have increased our support in the horticultural area. Kwantlen currently delivers horticultural programs. We expanded those programs at East Kootenay Community College.
I was pleased to be in Creston early last year -- to announce the construction of a new campus facility there. That campus facility will deliver horticultural training, and I believe there's some available at BCIT, as well. Horticulture has certainly expanded as an industry in this province. I can't remember the numbers, but they're pretty significant. I was amazed, when I met with horticultural people on some other issues, that the growth has been very, very good.
All I can say in general terms is that our philosophy is that the institutions have to be sensitive to that demand, and I think they are. But whether or not British Columbia needs a separate, stand-alone agricultural college at this point, that's certainly not a major policy area that I've looked at.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to make a bit of a statement here. We have piecemeal agriculture throughout the province through various institutions. If we could amalgamate all under one roof, I know the industries themselves would be willing to contribute to these things. They are willing to contribute to the experimental station for horticulture, for instance. They'd be only too glad, because right now if you really want to get into horticulture, you have to go to Ontario or to the States to get trained. We could do this very easily here if we amalgamated it and talked to the industry. If the minister could talk to the Minister of Agriculture, maybe something could be done in this area, which would be very beneficial to this province.
The next question I'd like to pose to the minister -- I mentioned this last year to him, and I wonder what he has done about it -- refers to the community colleges or community universities, a great concept. I have no problems with it whatsoever, except that once they became degree-granting, they pulled away from their communities. Last year, if you remember, I mentioned I was afraid they were becoming less community-oriented. I wonder if the minister has done anything, especially after the cuts in courses for the community, to try to keep them oriented toward the community they reside in.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: If that is indeed the case, it's not been brought to my attention. The announcement with respect to degree-granting was just made last year. I have some difficulty understanding how they could move that quickly, if indeed they have moved. That kind of representation has certainly not been made to me. I would urge the member to talk to members of the board of the community college and find out what their response is to that criticism.
In terms of a stand-alone college or one facility, we're trying to move away from that. I think the notion that bricks and mortar define education is a bit passe. We can now deliver programming through telecommunication right around the province. I think it's important that in the Creston Valley, for example, they have had a move away from forestry, in terms of a change in the economy there. They have consciously said that they need to get back to the land, back to agriculture. In fact, they've had some success. That's why the announcement of a new campus building and the expansion of horticultural programs in the Creston Valley make a heck of a lot of sense for that region. That's very much in keeping with our philosophy as well, where we're trying to deliver programming, if you like, closer to home and to recognize that this is a very large and diverse province. The days when anybody who wanted to get post-secondary education had to travel from wherever they lived in the province down to a lower mainland centre are going quickly, and I think that's good.
I think there's a certain atmosphere and culture that go with a major university, and I think it's appropriate that people want to continue to attend those. Obviously some of the courses, at least on the degree-granting side, are specialized courses that you couldn't get at a community college. But community colleges around the province can offer some first-rate programming. Graduates of those community colleges are outstanding.
I think we need to move a little off that bricks-and-mortar model and into a much more flexible model that sees program delivery as the objective, regardless of where it might be delivered. I'll just illustrate that in a simple way with two examples. One is the skills centre in Kitimat. I referred earlier to skills centres, and they are wired for sound, believe me. They have an interactive video connection. When I was with the Open Learning Agency in Burnaby, in theory, that interactive video connection can be with any institution that's got the hardware. The member will appreciate that that means a class being delivered in a classroom in Vancouver can be simultaneously delivered to a classroom in Kitimat, and there isn't the remote feeling that comes with a video presentation, because it's interactive. You can talk to the instructor, and the instructor can talk back to you. In that way we can offer fairly sophisticated training in fairly small centres at a tremendous cost saving.
The other example was when I was at Simon Fraser University. I talked about the innovation funds that we developed. We said to the institutions: "Look, you can deliver more with less; we know you can. You come to us with innovative ideas, we've got a budget here and we'll fund it." It's a onetime funding. Simon Fraser and UVic did the same thing -- interactive video linkages -- and I had the pleasure of being at Simon Fraser, and we were connected with the University of Victoria. The advantage there was the simultaneous
[ Page 15287 ]
delivery of an engineering lecture by a single instructor. You can appreciate the kinds of savings and flexibility that that kind of approach and delivery brings.
I'm aware of and appreciate the member's support for the agricultural sector. It is indeed a very important sector in the province. I think it's received some very strong support from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the previous minister. The previous minister -- currently the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- did some very good work in terms of promoting British Columbia and developing the Buy B.C. program.
I'm also delighted to see that some sectors of the agricultural industry are enjoying some good times. We've had a very good June. We've had some bumper crops. I saw some programming on the lettuce, and B.C. lettuce looks first-class. I understand, reading the press, that the strawberry people have had a bumper crop, and I wish them well. B.C. producers are very good quality, and we need to encourage, nourish and develop that particular industrial sector.
R. Chisholm: Again on the agricultural question, I appreciate the electronics education. I have been stating in my throne speech replies since 1992 that we should be utilizing more electronics and more of the classrooms available in the public school system and all the rest to facilitate higher education and to get it to the outreaches of the province at much less cost.
My concern with the agriculture end is whether we will ever have a degree-granting program. Right now we do not. We have minuscule programs, and I'd like to see a degree-granting program in areas such as horticulture. Then we can start talking veterinarian programs, etc. I don't know whether those types of things can be done through the electronic medium or you will have to have a stand-alone university to do them. Those are some more of my thoughts.
There are places like the Agassiz Research Station. At one time they were talking about closing it down. There might have been an opportunity to produce a college there. Maybe it can be done in conjunction with the federal government, now that they're going to wind it up again. These are just possibilities that might help this industry out, and I have to agree with you about electronics in education. That is one I have been pushing for a long time, and I think we could do a lot more with a lot less.
[8:15]
My next question to the minister is: what is the government's mandate for Skills Now funding in the future? Are they going to be able to continue at the same level or is there going to be a decrease because of the transfer payments? Is the government committed to ensure that Skills Now continues in the same manner?
The Chair: I see that the minister is going to answer a question involving future policy, regardless.
Hon. D. Miller: I simply want to say that I think the member has some very good ideas. I would urge the member, specifically on the agricultural issue, to talk to Kwantlen College, because I think they are giving some consideration to that.
With respect to future policy, all I can say at this point is that I am gearing up, as are my colleagues, to fight on behalf of British Columbians to preserve our post-secondary education system, our approach under Skills Now and our medicare system. I don't think that fight will be easy, but we are up for it, as I think the people of British Columbia are.
R. Chisholm: I would like to thank the minister for his answers. This is the last question I would like to pose to him. What is the government's thinking on expanding the CTC project and the Mission Joint Project to other parts of the province?
Hon. D. Miller: That is another wonderful approach by the government with respect to joint facility planning. The joint high school-post-secondary campus in Mission is, I think, going to be just wonderful, thanks to the member for Mission-Kent. Believe me, he beat me up a few times in fighting for his constituents, and I think they appreciate that. It's an approach that we're replicating in Campbell River, and I think it has potential around the province.
What we're saying -- and I'll try to be brief -- is that we need to break the barriers between systems. I believe my hon. critic talked about a seamless system.
L. Reid: A seamless post-secondary system.
Hon. D. Miller: A seamless post-secondary system. But we want the barriers between the systems to be broken down -- between high schools, colleges and universities. That linkage and laddering are very much a part of our program. It's happening; we're funding it.
I must say that in making those fundamental decisions about the future of British Columbia, we have consciously and deliberately looked at our books. We've looked at our fiscal situation; we have our fiscal house in order. We have made a determined decision to increase the debt to pay for these projects -- the Mission Joint Project and the project in the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's riding. We're going to expand our debt, because we can afford it, and we have the lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada. If we don't build these projects now, where are the children in Mission-Kent going to go to school? Where are we going to get the skilled technical graduates if we don't build these projects now?
It's to my utter horror and dismay that every time we turn around and make progress in British Columbia, we not only have to fight the federal Liberals, we also have the provincial Liberals kind of grabbing our legs. We have to kick them off, get them out of the way and try to move forward, but we're making progress.
L. Reid: I can assure this minister that nobody would get near his little legs unless he puts his shoes back on.
In terms of fighting the good fight, the British Columbia Liberals will stand up for the public education system in the province of British Columbia. There is no doubt about that. I'm a teacher; I'm an administrator, by training. This issue is heart and soul to what we need to discuss tonight. We are not giving it up. This minister will talk about fighting the good fight. I can tell you, I was there when the discussion came up about funding the language instruction for newcomers to Canada program, the LINC program. I was attending those meetings, fighting the good fight.
[ Page 15288 ]
This minister, again, has attempted to suggest that somehow he has a greater role. I would suggest not. I will come back to the original discussion where we talked partnerships and alliances, and this minister stood in this chamber and said he agreed. So if this is about a partnership, let's indeed form a useful partnership, and let's move away from the rhetoric.
Interjection.
L. Reid: I'm not even responding to that.
Let's move away from the rhetoric around who has the ultimate responsibility for education, because I would submit to you that it's the learner. We can put in place some interesting ways to facilitate that process, and we can have government act as a catalyst around that process, but there are private sector alliances that the minister has spoken of very, very highly this evening. Avcorp Industries in my riding is one. The Malaspina College situation with Honda Canada is one. All of that rhetoric around somehow standing back is not the way of the future; it is about forming useful partnerships and alliances.
Certainly the minister has taken great delight this evening in mentioning the voucher system. It has never been mentioned by this critic, and it has never been mentioned. I don't think reading is a complex skill, so I would invite the minister to read the document. That stretch of imagination is just that. Indeed, it takes us away from what needs to be discussed tonight, which is how you are managing this ministry.
I will ask this minister to put things on the table, and I appreciate if the answers aren't forthcoming. I have a number of programs I want to look at in detail, and I will put the questions before you. If you are able to respond to them this evening, fabulous. If not, I will wait for the information. In the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour there are a number of programs which are highlighted and don't tend to come with tremendous background: universities and international education branch, colleges and social and aboriginal programs, colleges and technical programs branch. I have a list that I will certainly work through. But to give you a sense of where I'm headed, the type of information I'm interested in is the FTEs in each of those programs. Again, let's have a list of questions I will be asking of this minister: the FTEs employed in each of the programs, the measurement of personnel in those programs.... I think we need to have some accountability to the taxpayer: a measure of performance, a measure of effectiveness and the main objectives of the program.
The documents that this minister sees fit to share with his critic are very general and very vague. I would very much appreciate some specific documentation. In terms of the objectives of the program, again, I'm looking for something fairly specific, and I want to know if the plans for each of these agencies or organizations have changed. Are we expecting something different from them that has not been discussed in any great detail? I would trust that the minister will respond with the number of contract individuals or individuals on secondment, as we move through the list.
Returning to the list: the urban colleges branch; the community education and innovation branch; the University Presidents' Council; the British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer; the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development; the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission; and perhaps the Advanced Education Council. I have some understanding of how the funding works for that particular agency. For the others there has not been a great deal of information made available to me.
I certainly appreciate that to work through each of those questions in each of those areas this evening may be somewhat problematic, and it is not my intention to do anything other than acquire the information. If it's possible to acquire the information this evening, I welcome it.
Hon. D. Miller: I must confess that normally I have these numbers in my head, but I have been rather busy lately, and we don't have them available. But I will get them to the member as soon as I possibly can.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's confirmation that he will provide my office with that material. It will be very, very useful in terms of getting a broader understanding of how it all comes together. Again, I welcome that.
In terms of the remaining hour in this evening's debate, I'm hoping we can work through at least some of the components of the Skills Now program. I anticipate concluding the debate, perhaps Monday afternoon, with colleges, universities and the Open Learning Agency to provide a follow-up to this afternoon's discussion.
This afternoon the minister certainly touched on the numbers that have been created in each of those components. I wonder if the minister could give us a quick snapshot -- a report card, if you will -- of the four components. In terms of where you expected them to be today, are they on line?
Hon. D. Miller: One of those programs is under the jurisdiction of my colleague the hon. Minister of Education. Your critic might want to pursue that there, if they haven't already. But yes, we are on track; in fact, we've exceeded our target.
L. Reid: To proceed specifically to the welfare-to-work component, I understand that there are 13 field offices and that the intention is to have 60 field offices up and running. I would be interested, again, in a report card on the status of that development -- are we at 60 offices today or 50 or 30? -- and some breakdown of the level of operation within those offices.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, with respect to the level of detail, I don't have that with me. We may be able to get it to the member tomorrow. I will not be here tomorrow, but my staff can get it to the member tomorrow. We'll certainly make our best efforts to provide any information she is seeking with respect to staffing levels, etc.
L. Reid: Again, I appreciate the minister's commitment to provide me with that information. It seems to me that at least understanding the development of the field offices would allow us to move into this debate in some detail, but perhaps we can continue to fold it around that discussion and trust that the information will be forthcoming.
One of the discussions that I would like to have concerns creating new field offices. Is there some discussion around combining those with existing field offices? The list of cities that will accommodate these offices.... We currently have
[ Page 15289 ]
Social Services offices and often have a number of other ministry offices. Has this minister looked at combining some of those delivery systems to streamline the process and hopefully economize?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, where those opportunities exist, we do have an agreement with the federal government to cohabit in seven locations around the province.
L. Reid: Perhaps I could ask the minister again to provide some detail. Seven out of 60 is probably heading in the right direction. Is there any reason at all that this minister is not able to move some of those offices into existing situations? It seems to me that we are duplicating administration, physical plant, occupancy, rents and all of those things in terms of having 53 offices that are brand-new, stand-alone offices. Is there no other opportunity in this ministry to create and streamline some of those ventures and do them in partnership?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we'll continue to pursue that. We have some difficulty dealing with the federal government at the present time. They are very hard to read; they're downsizing. My view is -- and in fact, the Premier has expressed this very strongly -- that we need to eliminate overlap and duplication for the federal government to transfer to British Columbia the dollars they commit to training, and we'll run the programs. So far we're having difficulty getting an answer, but we'll continue to pursue it.
L. Reid: To continue in this vein with the minister, the federal offices that exist may be part of that discussion, but there are provincial offices in most of the cities that are speculated about as being future sites for these field offices. Perhaps the discussion is not about combining with the federal government. Maybe it's just about collapsing some of the internal ministry operations or government operations into the same physical plant. If the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we are pursuing those opportunities as well.
L. Reid: I appreciate that those opportunities are being pursued. What I'm looking for is a report card. No more than seven ever? The fact that you're looking at it is commendable. But I want to know some time today if the goal is to have 50 of those offices combined with existing offices or 30 of those offices combined. Seven is interesting, but certainly there has to be some more room to manoeuvre around that.
[8:30]
Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, we're having some difficulty dealing with the federal government, because we don't know where they stand. They're very difficult to communicate with.
L. Reid: Provincial offices.
Hon. D. Miller: We made a decision to physically separate in most cases the function that I now provide in my ministry, which is the welfare-to-work programs, from the Social Services offices around British Columbia. We want to have a separate location for a lot of different reasons. Ultimately, I would like to see the skills centres developed and become a feature around this province. We have 20 on the go -- or we will have. I would like to see those co-located, with the CEC people and the provincial people in that one location so that those people who are looking for service don't have to bounce from pillar to post to find it. The federal government has not provided the kinds of services through Manpower that are necessary: assessment, counselling, and brokerage with the public sector institutions in terms of training or whatever. The minister makes speeches a lot, but he does very little.
So we're aggressively pursuing those opportunities. We're out there in the field, we've opened new offices and we are serving those clients. I indicated we have almost 25,000 people in terms of the sectoral training partnerships, and we'll be having more. There are going to be some significant announcements made soon in this province on that topic, which have the full and unqualified support of the business community. They are the right way to go as far as building the economy and building the skills of individuals in this province.
L. Reid: To clarify the question, is it possible to combine existing field offices as relayed by this minister under this component of Skills Now with existing provincial offices? I fully accept the minister's contention that it may not be appropriate to mesh those with Social Services offices.
It seems to me that there are 18 other ministries that have offices in most of the cities that are outlined as prospective sites for these field offices. Has consideration been given to housing other ministry operations with these field offices to save some dollars for the taxpayer in terms of administration and overhead? Again, I understand the minister's contention around combining it with Social Services, and I'm not advocating that. I'm simply asking if consideration has been given to any of the other ministry offices.
Hon. D. Miller: Always. Where there's vacant space controlled through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, obviously that would be our first choice. Some communities don't have those opportunities, but we seek to reduce or minimize the cost of delivery, and efficiencies can be gained through that approach.
L. Reid: The welfare-to-work program has moved through a number of stages. We're aware that it was announced in September 1993. September to April was considered the planning phase; between April 1994 and April 1995 the system is in transition. That is certainly the information I have. What are we looking at in this transition phase? What needs to happen for this to move into the next phase? I'm trusting that somewhere in there, there is going to be a response about evaluation.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the targets for '94-95 by program, for assessment, counselling and referral, the budget is $2 million; 9,000 clients were served, receiving counselling services and ongoing programs. For a bridging program to assist income assistance recipients to acquire basic life skills, literary skills, job search skills and work experience, $33.32 million; $3 million of that is student summer works 1995 with 13,856 clients participating. Institution-based training is when eligible income assistance recipients receive institutional supports and learner supports for career, vocational training and
[ Page 15290 ]
post-secondary institutions. The amount was $14.47 million; it had 16,276 clients.
Workplace-based training, which also includes the tourism workplace training program and the forest worker development program, had a total budget of $3.56 million, $4.08 million, $6.9 million, plus an additional $7 million. Total clients were in the neighbourhood of 1,600. I didn't attempt to add that up, but it represents a considerable number of individuals who have received training or assistance in one form or another under the general heading of training and employability.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. When we talk about the dollars that have been expended to date on the welfare-to-work program, and the self-esteem and human dignity that are part of that program, I fundamentally support that. What I want to get at in terms of where this ministry may be a year or two from now is: has there been some consideration given to following these people as they move through the system in order to discover if they are gainfully employed after a certain period of time? I understand that a number of provinces are looking at that in slightly different ways.
It seems to me that when we are expending public dollars to the extent that we are, there is hopefully some cost-benefit analysis. By putting students through these programs, are we unfairly raising their expectations? Are we delivering something that is actually useful to them? I think it almost lends itself to some kind of longitudinal study, because perhaps we won't have that answer for a year or two. Certainly that has been the criticism of programs in the past. We've had condensed three-month or six-month programs, and we have graduated a number of people through the programs, but we didn't take the next step of looking to see whether that benefited them in their ongoing employment or if, once the program was done, it was simply a dead end.
What I am looking for in this discussion of these four components is any consideration that may be given to what happens to these folks after they complete the programming. I think the question is absolutely vital for the participants in the programs, but it does have some bearing on the continuing funding of those programs. Would the minister be so kind as to comment?
Hon. D. Miller: The short answer is yes, we are doing a much better job of tracking individuals. Some have described the sort of cycle that some of these programs have led to as: off social assistance, into an ABE class and back onto social assistance. What is the gain? I don't mean to say that all the programs are delivered in a negative way, because I've been in classrooms and talked to people in those situations, and they are feeling very positive about themselves. I've received letters from people who have gone on to employment as a result of them. We're trying to do a much better job of tracking and ensuring that when we are out there delivering a program that has a so-called intended benefit, that is in fact the benefit that is received.
Similarly with the workplace-based programs, as I indicated earlier, we require a training plan, and we will be tracking that, too. We also require employers to make reasonable commitments with respect to long-term employment -- not to bring somebody in because there is a training credit, then at the end of that period they are out the door. We will be tracking that on a continuous basis, and if there are deficiencies, we will adjust for that. Whether it's institutional-based or workplace-based, what we want to do is deliver programming that leads people to be able to acquire permanent employment.
L. Reid: I welcome the minister's comments. That is exactly how we need to proceed, and certainly research will bear that out. Even the province of Newfoundland is looking at how to track students and follow them through the system. Again, I am delighted that the ministry is going to look at the long-term impact of investing dollars now and hopefully giving students something meaningful over time. I thank the minister for his comments.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to enter the debates on Skills, Training and Labour. I would like to ask the minister some questions around the K-to-12 component of Skills Now and what his ministry contributes to the K-to-12 system, particularly around work experience, the apprenticeship programs, linking high schools to the workplace, and how many far-reaching programs this ministry has in place. I would like to ask the minister to expand on the career programs that focus on work experience, with particular attention to the apprenticeship program that is just getting underway.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to get too deep into this, because those programs are really under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Education; we work in a collaborative way. People in my ministry have worked very closely with people in the Ministry of Education with respect to the development of the in-school apprenticeship program. I'm very proud of that as a minister, and I know my colleague the Minister of Education is as well.
The achievements to date are that approximately 285 secondary school students in 23 school districts have been registered in 27 trades and occupations. The number of districts participating is expected to increase to 50, and the number of students to increase by 500 by September of this year.
I previously mentioned the scholarship program that we put in place. I think that to get into more detail in terms of work experience, with all due respect, is not under my jurisdiction.
L. Stephens: The Skills Now program, from the ministry's own documents, clearly shows a K-to-12 component. I would encourage the minister to have another look at his document and see what his ministry is responsible for in K to 12.
Could the minister tell me what amount is in his present budget for the upcoming 1995-96 year in the K-to-12 Skills Now program?
Hon. D. Miller: Nothing.
L. Stephens: In 1993-94, approximately $33 million for work experience was attributed to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, and $19 million over two years was attributed to the K-to-12 fund. Could the minister explain what...? He's shaking his head no, this isn't money from his ministry.
Let's talk about curriculum, then. Does the ministry contribute curriculum and resource development to the K-to-12 program in the applied grade 11 and grade 12 career and
[ Page 15291 ]
vocational courses? Last year, 1993-94, there was something like $825,000 identified in the curriculum branch budget for the development of grade 11 and grade 12 curriculum in trades and technical services -- forest science technology 11 and 12 is one. Horticulture, agriculture, environmental studies and information technology are others. Could the minister expand on what amounts in his budget are reflected in these estimates for the coming year?
[8:45]
Hon. D. Miller: Again, we do collaborate with the Ministry of Education with respect to some of the programs that were talked about. Both the Minister of Education and myself feel very strongly about the need to expand those program opportunities in the K-to-12 system. The responsibility really rests with the Minister of Education, and the budget amounts.... I'm not sure where the member is reading from, or where that information is from but the numbers that she previously cited are not under my ministry.
L. Stephens: These documents are from Skills Now, the minister's program. One of the purposes of the curriculum resource division development program talks about ensuring that high school courses are relevant to post-secondary programs in the workplace. Could the minister talk a bit about the linkages between the K-to-12 program, the post-secondary programs and the workplace? In the collaborative manner he speaks of when he works with the Minister of Education, what is this minister's role?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I repeat that we do collaborate with the ministry in those kinds of programs. The budgeted amounts are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister of Education, and the rest with those estimates.
L. Stephens: If I heard the minister correctly, what he is saying is that his ministry contributes no money at all to the K-to-12 Skills Now program. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that is correct. There are joint communications initiatives. In fact, in terms of program descriptions, it is not untypical to have the K-to-12 program elements contained in the general description of the Skills Now initiative.
In terms of the budget allocation specifically, I believe $20-odd million was allocated to the Minister of Education this year. I believe I am absolutely correct, and I have answered you three times that it's not under my ministry and that this should be canvassed during the estimates of the Minister of Education.
L. Stephens: This was canvassed during the Ministry of Education's estimates. They were canvassed at that time, and this minister has, in this document I have, a number of costs allocated by this ministry to various organizations. Technology alliance is one of them. So if the minister is saying that all the costs around the Skills Now curriculum are in the Ministry of Education budget -- and that is what I hear him saying -- what does the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour contribute to the K-to-12 Skills Now program?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is the one I've given for some time now: we do not contribute. Those issues in the K-to-12 system are funded under the Ministry of Education. If they are outside the K-to-12 system, they are funded under my ministry. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
L. Stephens: The minister is answering part of the question. One of the questions is around the amount of money that's allocated from his ministry, and he is saying none.
What I'd like to know is: what programs -- what curriculum development -- does this ministry contribute to the K-to-12 Skills Now program? Does this ministry talk about recognition of national and international standards, involvement of business and labour in curriculum development and the development of outcome-based courses?
Hon. D. Miller: There is collaboration with respect to curriculum development, and the Ministry of Education.... I'm not going to answer questions for the Minister of Education. There is an opportunity during those budget estimates to canvass.
There are curriculum development committees. There is no question that we collaborate. We have collaborated because the K-to-12 portion of Skills Now is linked to the post-secondary system. Thus when you develop applied programs -- whether they be forestry or applied technology -- in the K-to-12 system, they are linked into programs in the post-secondary system, the college system or universities. For the last time, this is not the Ministry of Education's estimates, and I think the questions should be germane to my ministry.
L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister can answer some questions about the technology component of his ministry and how it relates to school districts, regional correspondence schools and the Open Learning Agency, and whether his ministry is participating in any joint programs there.
Hon. D. Miller: We could well be.
L. Stephens: Would the minister like to elaborate on what those may be?
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I didn't get the complete question; perhaps the member might like to elaborate.
L. Stephens: Yes, I'd be pleased to repeat this. Would the minister elaborate on any programs they may share and collaborate on with school districts, regional correspondence schools or the Open Learning Agency?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:50 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]