[ Page 3127 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a school from the Fraser Heights area in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Their teacher Ms. Douglas and 27 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy have made a trip over today, and I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure today to introduce some longtime friends and someone I had the opportunity to work with when I was president of our local union in school district 24, as it was then -- I think it's now No. 73: Tom Balson, who is a longtime school trustee who provided fabulous service to the area of Kamloops, and his wife Mary. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Would the House please welcome 20 grade 3 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. McAuley, and my deputy minister, Eloise Spitzer, whose daughter Kali Spitzer is part of this grade 3 class. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to announce to the House that there are 40 members of Chilliwack Multicultural Services, including their director, Ann Muehlebach, just seating themselves now in the Speaker's gallery. Most of the people are newcomers to Canada who are participating in the LINC program, which operates out of the newly opened Canadian Centre under the auspices of the Chilliwack Community Services Society. Last Christmas I had the privilege and the opportunity to attend their annual Christmas banquet, and I can indicate to everyone here that it was a very enjoyable time. I would ask everyone here in the Legislature to make these people from Chilliwack welcome.

E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two constituents from the Comox Valley -- two friends and two friends of labour. These constituents are Marianne Davies, president of the Campbell River, Courtenay and District Labour Council, and accompanying her, her mother Florence Bell. These two women are exemplary people in the Comox Valley, representing the strength of labour in our community and in the valley. Marianne's grandfather came to the Comox Valley many years ago, first as an organizer for the IWA. They are here today, hon. Speaker, to assist and support me as I read a proclamation from Elizabeth II.

"To all whom these presents shall come -- Greetings.

"WHEREAS organized labour in this Province has made and continues to make a valuable contribution to the establishment of communities and growth of B.C.'s economy, and

"WHEREAS the Ministry of Education strives to instill in students intellectual development, human and social development and career development, and

"WHEREAS in order to become effective citizens, workers and parents, all children should be made aware through our schools of the role organized labour has played in the history of the Province, and

"WHEREAS Our Administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council in that behalf that a Proclamation be issued designating May, 1997 as 'Labour History Month' in British Columbia. . . ."

Ministerial Statement

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

We've had many reminders in the last few months of the importance of being prepared for emergencies. We've seen the heroic efforts of the citizens of Manitoba as they have joined together, community by community, neighbours helping neighbours, battling the floodwaters of the Red River. We are inspired by their struggle. British Columbia has been able to offer assistance to them, as have individual Canadians all across the country.

In our province we have not forgotten this past winter's snowstorm. Also, the rising waters of the Somass River and the Okanagan and Kalamalka lakes are now cause for concern, and we shall be watching those areas very closely.

Emergency Preparedness Week is a time to reflect on our preparedness for such incidents. Each of us should examine our own readiness for an emergency, our preparations in our homes and offices, and our plans for our families, neighbourhoods and communities.

This weekend I was pleased to participate in an emergency preparedness event in Coquitlam and distribute new multilingual, pocket-sized earthquake survival guides. The guides are designed to help individuals with their emergency planning and to make that information as widely accessible as possible.

The government of British Columbia is also examining the province's preparedness. As you know, I have asked the auditor general of this province to assess the province's emergency earthquake preparedness, and that audit is now underway. I look forward to sharing the results of that audit when it's completed so that we can do whatever is necessary to improve our emergency procedures.

Emergency Preparedness Week runs until May 11. I urge all hon. members and all British Columbians to ensure full preparedness.

G. Plant: I want to thank the Attorney General for providing me with a copy of his ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, events in Manitoba remind us daily of the awesome power of nature and the yet more awesome power of the Canadian spirit. To revise the words of Norman Maclean: all Canadians this spring have been haunted by waters. Each day these past few weeks has also marked a fresh reminder of the importance of preparation, the only effective tool we have for responding to natural disasters.

Nature is close to us here in British Columbia. Last New Year's snowstorm and last month's deluge in Trail are recent reminders of our need to stand on guard against the devastation that nature can and does cause here in the place we call home.

May is one of the most beautiful months in our beautiful province, but it can also be one of the most dangerous. I'm reminded again of Norman Maclean's words: "The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basin of time."

In May 1948 my father, his brother and his sister joined together with their high school and university friends to help bag sand to hold back the raging waters of the Fraser River. Once again, 49 years later, the snow has begun to melt in the 

[ Page 3128 ]

high country above our towns, our villages, our farms and ranches, and the rivers have begun to rise. It is good for us, those of us who live in the lowlands, to be reminded of the importance of vigilance.

Like other British Columbians, I look forward to receiving from the Attorney General the results of the emergency preparedness audit which is underway. But for today, I join with him in urging all British Columbians to make good use of Emergency Preparedness Week.

Tabling Documents

[2:15]

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY INVESTMENT
AND JOB CREATION

My question is for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister tell us what kind of job damage has been done in the forest industry as a result of this government's policies? And how many forest sector jobs have relocated to Alberta and the United States?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the opposition selectively uses statistics, but they ignore that there has been. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They laugh at the fact that there have been 10,000 jobs created since 1991. In the forest sector report. . . . The survey of employment, payroll and hours produced by Stats Canada indicates that there has been a 1.1 percent increase over January 1996 in the forest sector. There is growth in the sector, not decline, as they would suggest.

G. Campbell: This side of the House celebrates the creation of any job in British Columbia. However, we also recognize that when we lose 5,500 jobs in our most critical industry in just one year, that's something the government should be concerned about.

Yesterday this Minister of Forests bragged about a billion dollars in investments. The last time we were at this stage in the cycle, the private sector invested $2.8 billion in the forest industry. That means that NDP forest policies have driven forest sector investment down by almost two-thirds. That's $2 billion of lost investment to the forest sector. B.C. jobs are going to Alberta and the United States.

My question to the Minister of Forests is: how can the minister take pride in that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If companies are earning profits in British Columbia, then they ought to be reinvested in British Columbia. If there are opportunities in other provinces, then it's expected that they'll take advantage of those opportunities.

The fact, as I repeat it here, is that because of cutting patterns in the past, there has been some reduction in the amount of fibre that's cut here, in some regions in British Columbia. In other regions of British Columbia, the amount of cut is going up. So there's as much timber cut today as there was three or four years ago.

The point about the jobs last year is that there's actually an increase from January of last year to January of this year -- and that's how I read that report.

G. Campbell: The issue that people face across this province, in family after family -- 5,500 families have faced it -- is the loss of their jobs in the forest industry.

This government's policies have driven investment out of the province. This government's policies have driven such longtime B.C. companies as West Fraser, Ainsworth and MacMillan Bloedel to look elsewhere, to look outside B.C. to create jobs. And the issue for me is: how is this minister going to create an environment that will encourage investment and encourage job creation, as opposed to the loss of 5,500 family-supporting jobs in the forest sector in 1996?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have to remember that that opposition over there is funded in large part by the big forest companies -- tens of thousands of dollars, hon. Speaker. If this Leader of the Opposition was where I was, with the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers last Friday, he would have heard Ainsworth stand up and say that they took profits earned in British Columbia and reinvested in an OSB plant in British Columbia.

FOREST WORKER AGENCY
AND EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY

In July last year this House passed Bill 12, an act establishing a forest workers agency. The purpose of this forest workers agency. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the question.

T. Nebbeling: The purpose of the forest workers agency is to match eligible forest workers with jobs in Forest Renewal projects, and it also facilitates priority hiring for eligible forest workers.

Today we see hundreds of forest workers joining that force of unemployed people in this province. The 5,500 unemployed forest workers are now, on a weekly basis, being increased by 100 small forest workers that no longer have job opportunities. At the same time, there is no agency. . .

[ Page 3129 ]

The Speaker: The question.

T. Nebbeling: I'm getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

. . .in this province to help these displaced forest workers.

My question to the minister is: is the minister going to honour the commitment made to the forest workers in this province and open this so much needed agency, or are we just witnessing another broken promise?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forest Renewal B.C. has been working extremely hard to ensure that when the agency is up and running -- which we hope will be soon -- it will do the job of matching displaced forest workers with jobs.

First of all, we have to ensure that those jobs are there, and the whole purpose of the jobs and timber accord discussion is to ensure that we move toward a new type of forest worker so that he can work not on a little job here and a little job there, but that we create full-time -- or as near as possible full-time -- jobs. It's this side of the House that brought in the program that will bring in the renewal and will deliver to those displaced forest workers, not that side. That's the side that voted against it, hon. Speaker.

T. Nebbeling: Let's see if we can find the reason why the agency is not in operation today, and I think we have it here. The definition of a forest worker, as stated by FRBC, is: "An eligible forest worker is any person whose livelihood is derived from employment in the forest sector, be it in harvesting, be it in manufacturing or be it in silviculture."

During a conference of silviculture contractors, the president of the IWA, Dave Haggard, informed the contractors that in order to get a piece of the FRBC pie, they had to accept certification of their workers. My question to the minister is: will the minister guarantee the House that all forest workers will be eligible for FRBC-funded projects and that no special interest group can play with the intent of Bill 12?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, in the next breath they'll be asking for unemployed IWA workers to be given first priority. They speak out of all sides of their mouth.

The forest workers in the industry who have built the industry on the coast -- the hard workers from up and down the coast, IWA members -- deserve an opportunity to be hired. The complaint from that side has been that we haven't employed enough. What we are doing is making sure that we have a smooth transition, so that the 8,000-some person-years of employment created by Forest Renewal go to the displaced forest workers, wherever they are in the province.

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I'm sure most British Columbians are as pleased as we are that Chief Joe Gosnell was re-elected president of the Nisga'a tribal council this past Sunday.

I think it's also fair to say that we are relieved by the Premier's comments in yesterday's news that a final agreement is still several months away, or longer. Can the minister confirm that fact for the record? And can he also confirm that there is still no clear agreement between the province and Ottawa on either the legal means to achieve certainty or the cost-sharing arrangements for the proposed Nisga'a government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the answer is yes, the cost-sharing arrangements have not been finalized. The discussions that are taking place are under the umbrella of an earlier agreement, but there's more work that needs to be done in order to address a number of key issues there.

With regard to the length of time it will take, my own projection at this point would be that it will take a few months, but the bottom line should be that it be the right agreement. When we are able to get the right agreement that's right for British Columbians, that's when we should proceed.

R. Neufeld: Supplementary. The government's 1996 "Financial and Economic Review" has promised international investors that: "Final negotiations to reach a settlement will commence after public input has been obtained on the AIP."

Given that the negotiations to finalize the deal began immediately after the AIP was signed, have been ongoing for over a year and are now nearing completion without any opportunity for meaningful input, can the minister explain what his government meant by that promise? Will he now commit to honour that commitment to a genuine public consultation process on the AIP, one which is specifically aimed at improving and renegotiating any elements of the package that are not acceptable to most British Columbians -- or rather, getting the right agreement?

Hon. J. Cashore: I categorically reject the fundamental assumption behind that question. There has been extensive consultation; there has continued to be extensive consultation. Even recently we have seen concern expressed about the consultation that was taking place by the Ministry of Lands, and that was misrepresented as other than what it actually was, which was consultation with third parties. The fact is that there have been over 120 meetings undertaken since the time the AIP was signed. There has been the input, which that we've been monitoring, that has been going into the select standing committee. There has been the ongoing work with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and with the regional advisory committee. To stand there and say. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think that's sufficient.

Hon. J. Cashore: . . .that consultation has not taken place is a scurrilous wrong.

REPORT COMMISSIONED BY
GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

What British Columbians want most of all from a historical analysis of our constitution is an independent and objective approach to the question. My question, therefore, is for the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. Did he consider hiring other constitutional historians? Or was he content with the chief constitutional adviser's recommendation of Mr. Munro as the best choice for doing this $20,000 report?

[ Page 3130 ]

[2:30]

The New Democrat government has come into possession of a document -- after exhaustive research -- sent to the Leader of the Opposition, inviting the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus to become involved in this project. Let me quote from the document sent to him by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast: "It is my intention that this process be non-partisan, and therefore your involvement and support would be welcome."

It is my understanding that the members opposite declined to become involved in the process, have not responded. They attended a briefing and then did not participate -- preferred to sit back and sandbag this process in order to undermine the attempt to produce a non-partisan approach to resolving our constitutional issues. It's really time for the Liberal opposition to come forward with some constructive suggestions and stop sandbagging constructive process.

The Speaker: Minister, the time has expired. The bell terminates question period, and I shall resist the temptation to comment on that fact.

Orders of the Day

In Committee A, I call estimates. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: Just entering the gallery up there, you'll see some people in blue. They're grade 5 students from Collingwood School in West Vancouver. I'm particularly pleased to see them here, as my daughter started her career at Collingwood three years ago in grade 5. So it's very nice to see the students, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. David Hughes, and several parents from the community. Would the House please make them welcome.

On section 26.

F. Gingell: I just wonder if the minister wanted to use this opportunity to tell us about all the good things that are moving forward in the accountability process that will be assisted by the passage of section 26.

Hon. A. Petter: As tempting as it is to take the member up on his invitation, I think I'll defer the opportunity until estimates, when the role and responsibilities of the ministry are more fully before us.

All this amendment does is recognize and continue the exemption that exists with respect to the office of the chief investment officer, because the office of the chief investment officer is being separated from the provincial treasury in order to ensure its autonomy in pursuing the investments that it does. If the member wants to inquire more deeply into the operations of treasury or this office, I'd be happy to do it in estimates.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could start by advising the committee which minister of the Crown is responsible for the administration of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

F. Gingell: As I understand it, the purpose of this section is to provide for the movement of all responsibilities and the delivery of the SAFER program from your ministry to the B.C. Housing Management Commission. When one looks in the accounts of your ministry, one sees that the administration cost in this section of housing grants was roughly cut in half this year. Can the minister advise the committee what compensation will be paid to the B.C. Housing Management Commission for performing these services that his ministry is responsible for? Or do you intend for them to be absorbed into rentals that are charged to people in properties administered by and held in trust by this commission? Exactly what is the funding arrangement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrative component for the SAFER program that existed in the ministry is transferred over to B.C. Housing. So what money was previously expended by this ministry on administration will be expended by B.C. Housing.

F. Gingell: I take it that where these expenses appear in your budget this year is part of the grant to B.C. Housing rather than administration costs of your ministry.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

F. Gingell: It doesn't surprise me that the ministry has made this change. I wonder if the minister can advise the committee exactly what benefits one anticipates flowing from this change in responsibilities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the primary benefit, hon. member, will be the fact that all rental subsidies are delivered through one program, as opposed to some being delivered through B.C. Housing, some being delivered through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. So there will be the elimination of some duplication by combining them under one agency.

[ Page 3131 ]

The second is the fact that by moving that to B.C. Housing, which is located in Vancouver, you're in fact closer to the largest group of people who are receiving the benefits of that program. So I think you get a benefit there in the ability to respond better.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 33 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 33,

(a) in the proposed section 15(1)(s) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by deleting "section 15(1)(s) as it read before its replacement by this paragraph," and substituting "a pollution abatement provision,",

(b) in the proposed section 15(3)(b) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by deleting "under subsection (1)(s)" and substituting "for pollution abatement purposes", and

(c) in the proposed section 15(5) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by adding the following definition:

"pollution abatement provision" means section 15(1)(s) of this Act, section 339(1)(q) of the Municipal Act or section 396(1)(e.01) of the Vancouver Charter, as those provisions read before their repeal and replacement by the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997.]

G. Abbott: I'd just like a brief explanation from the minister of how this section 33 differs from the section 23 that we discussed at some length a little bit earlier, the purpose of it and why it's there in relation to 23.

Hon. A. Petter: It's just a question of the land base to which it applies. In this case, it applies in the rural area in exactly the same way as the earlier section applied elsewhere. So there's no difference in principle. It's just a matter of the application of it within different components of the taxation base.

G. Abbott: So the determining point is whether the area in question is incorporated or unincorporated?

Hon. A. Petter: Precisely.

Amendment approved.

On section 33 as amended.

F. Gingell: Just before the adjournment at 12 o'clock, we got into an interesting discussion with the member for Matsqui on the application of these provisions in the area of agriculture and farming. I wonder if, during the lunchtime break, the minister learned anything further on this issue, or whether he still takes the position that this section has never been applied to agricultural use.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by staff that over the lunch hour they did check, and confirmed that the amount of agricultural assessed value that's been an issue has been in the range of $25,000, which is, in the general scheme of things, pretty small.

Section 33 as amended approved.

On section 34.

F. Gingell: I was just rising on this one to ask the minister how he feels this tax increase -- and I'm sure that it is a tax increase; it's not the sunsetting of some previous legislation passed in 1992 -- reconciles with the government's commitment not to raise taxes.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the legislation with respect to the tax freeze did not apply, and was never intended to or purported to apply to tobacco tax. The reason for this particular tax increase -- and I agree with the member, it is a tax increase -- is twofold.

First of all, the obvious rationale for taxing tobacco is to recognize the costs that tobacco imposes upon society in terms of the health risk it poses. Those costs are ones that relate not to the form in which the tobacco is consumed but to the amount of tobacco that is consumed, and this levels the playing field in that regard.

The other related concern is that the distinction between loose tobacco and cigarettes is one the tobacco companies have started to exploit in order to put out products that attract a lower tax, even though they are not much different in the marketplace. The best example of that is tobacco sticks. I'm not a smoker myself, so I don't really know how it all functions. But as I understand it, a tobacco stick is a product which is not immediately usable as a cigarette -- and therefore doesn't qualify as a cigarette -- but with one very simple step becomes usable. For example, you slide it into a tube. As a result, that allowed tobacco companies to exploit an opportunity for tax avoidance on the part of consumers and to make tobacco a more attractive alternative, when the purpose of the tax was to dissuade people from utilizing more tobacco.

For that reason as well -- to protect the revenue base and to ensure that tobacco is taxed on an equitable basis according to its cost -- I felt that this was one tax area in which a modest increase not inconsistent with the tax freeze commitments or legislation this government had passed was well justified in public policy terms. And that's why this increase is here.

F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that explanation. Could the minister please advise the committee of the amount of additional revenues they anticipate raising from this tax increase?

[2:45]

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

On section 36.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 36 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 36,

(a) in the proposed section 396(1)(e.01) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "section 396(1)(e.01) as it read before its replacement by this paragraph," and substituting "a pollution abatement provision,",

(b) in the proposed section 396(3)(b) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "under subsection (1)(e.01)" and substituting "for pollution abatement purposes", and

(c) in the proposed section 396(4) of the Vancouver Charter, by adding the following definition:

[ Page 3132 ]

"pollution abatement provision" means section 396(1)(e.01) of this Act, section 339(1)(q) of the Municipal Act or section 15(1)(s) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, as those provisions read before their repeal and replacement by the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997.]

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I'm quickly looking at my notes from. . . . Is section 37 going to apply to the minister for one year only?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in fact, it will apply for one year. It's a transitional section that will expire March 31, 1998.

G. Abbott: Am I to understand that after that one year this authority and indeed this section will not be needed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. It will become redundant, because section 2 of the bill, which we've already debated, will come into full effect.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

D. Jarvis: I look at section 38 and I find it. . . . Perhaps it's somewhat of a shell game that's being played in the ministry to try to evade the responsibility and the accountability of the line ministry. Here we are again moving moneys out of the Crown corporations into the line ministries in order to help them try to balance their budget. They're eyeing ICBC, like they have B.C. Hydro and Forest Renewal, and who knows what other Crown corporation down the line. But they're eyeing it to try to balance their budget. They're trying to hide the expenses of the line ministry, which normally would be paid out of the Highways ministry, in this case, by taking the moneys out of the Crown corporations; and they in themselves are really not that accountable.

There's no question that the accounting system in this government is in shambles. We have a massive debt, and here we are going to a line ministry. . . . Pardon me, we're asking money for the line ministry to be pulled out of a Crown corporation, when their own balance sheet shows that they've lost money. You know, it's like carrying coals to Newcastle. It's one broke outfit trying to loan money to another outfit that is even broker than the Crown corporation. The Crown corporation only lost -- so they say, which I will dispute when those estimates come up -- around $140 million. And you're showing that our debt is close to $31 billion. So I was just wondering if the minister can tell me how he can possibly pull moneys out from a Crown corporation that's in debt now, that's showing there's insufficient moneys and no moneys available for the line ministries. And why would he want to put it in. . . ? How could he pull it out of one ministry and increase the debt of that Crown corporation for the sake of his own line ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: I know there's a lot of controversy, which the member himself is trying to intensify, swirling around ICBC these days. But the one issue that I thought was not controversial -- in fact, that I've heard advocated by virtually all parties and all interest groups -- was that ICBC should look more intensely at investing in road safety as a strategy to reduce the real cause of much of the premium pressure, which is, of course, the rate of accidents and the injuries and vehicular damage that result from those accidents.

So this is in furtherance of that objective. ICBC has taken on its responsibilities for encouraging additional road safety initiatives. That was done last year. There was some transfer of road safety functions to ICBC, and ICBC was to assume that investment and increase that investment as a strategy to reduce vehicle accidents and thereby maintain premiums. The one thing that is not happening is. . . . While ICBC is assuming responsibilities for some of the administrative functions of the motor vehicle branch, it is being provided with a revenue stream to offset the additional costs of that component of what's being transferred to it. All that's happening here is a transitional measure in this provision, section 38. Because the transfer to ICBC is taking place into the fiscal year, ICBC will reimburse the ministry for carrying on functions that are properly going to be functions of ICBC once the transfer is effective.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister give us an anticipated cost of what will be involved?

Hon. A. Petter: I am trying to secure some of the more detailed information the member is seeking. But in principle my understanding of this section is that it is to assist the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with costs the ministry will incur in this four-month transition period with respect to phase 2 of the ICBC-motor vehicle branch transfer; therefore it's covering the road safety component of those costs. If you want a more detailed breakdown of those, I can try to get them for the member. This is a matter that could be easily pursued within the ministry's estimates. This money is being transferred to the ministry to carry out these activities in the first four months, and therefore I anticipated that the debate on that would occur within the estimates. This is simply providing for the transfer of funding.

D. Jarvis: If the minister would be so kind as to. . . . We are unaware of when we may be looking at any type of estimates to ask those questions. That could be some time from now. It could be June; it could be September.

K. Krueger: Just ballpark it.

D. Jarvis: As the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has suggested, perhaps the minister could give us a ballpark breakdown of these moneys.

Hon. A. Petter: It's one step more complex than I had originally understood. As I understand it, ICBC will be obtaining a revenue stream from revenues that accrue from licences, etc., to cover their costs for the fiscal year. But because in the first few months of the fiscal year the functions they are taking on will continue to be carried out by the ministry rather than by ICBC, there is a paper transfer taking place to recognize that the revenue stream being provided to ICBC comes through to the ministry that's carrying out the functions. Therefore it covers functions such as the operation of weigh scales, the management of commercial transport, management services, the motor carrier department, policy standards and legislation, the superintendent's office and licence reviews.

[ Page 3133 ]

The point I was trying to make earlier, which is a somewhat different point, is that the revenue stream being provided for ICBC is to cover the administrative costs of managing the motor vehicle component. ICBC does take unto itself some of the incremental costs related to road safety, because those are one of the measures that ICBC is pursuing in order to try to keep the rate of accidents down and to ensure that premiums don't increase.

D. Jarvis: Of course, road safety can encompass many things. Can the minister assure us that moneys. . . ? As we can't get a total of how much is involved -- what the cost would be -- which we asked for, he's asking us to accept the fact that he's going to transfer large amounts of money from ICBC into the line ministry -- or away from the line ministry's job. Theoretically, that's what it is. So could he tell us if there's any intention, when talking about safety, to use it for policing or photo radar?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't understand the member's question earlier. The amount that's being transferred is quite transparent and is provided for in the estimates. It's about $5.8 million to cover the functions I indicated, and it's to cover the section of prorated expenditures that the ministry incurs in anticipation of the transfer to ICBC.

D. Jarvis: So no portion of that $5.8 million, plus or minus, is going to be used in the safety end of policing or photo radar.

[3:00]

K. Krueger: With respect, we don't really understand why the section is worded the way it is. If we're merely dealing with those costs that would have normally been part of the motor vehicle branch and are now being shifted into ICBC, why would the wording read: ". . .having been incurred by that ministry during that fiscal year for programs under the Motor Vehicle Act promoting and improving highway safety"? When we talk about improving highway safety, are we talking about any construction or planning costs for roads, safety engineering or any of those sorts of functions?

Hon. A. Petter: The simple answer is no.

K. Krueger: The way the section reads to me. . . . Frankly, if the Minister of Transportation and Highways was to hand an invoice or any other sort of form to ICBC at the end of the year and say, "This is the amount you write the cheque for," the cheque would have to be written. It says: ". . .net of the amount appropriated under the Motor Vehicles subvote. . . ." But the wording is the reason that we were concerned as to what is contained in this provision. I take it we have the Finance minister's assurance that all we are discussing is a sum less than $6 million pertaining to those functions that he discussed earlier.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The amount is provided for members in the estimates and will be debated, I'm sure, as part of the estimates.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The Chair: All those in favour say aye.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Opposed, if any, say nay.

Some Hon. Members: Nay.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

The Chair: A division has been called.

Come to order. The question is completion of committee stage of Bill 2. All those in favour, please rise.

Thank you, hon. members. You may be seated.

Those opposed, please rise.

Thank you very much. You may be seated.

Law Clerk: Voting yea: Evans, Zirnhelt, McGregor, Boone, Hammell, Streifel, Pullinger, Farnworth, Kwan, Waddell, Calendino, Stevenson, Bowbrick, Goodacre, Giesbrecht, Walsh, Kasper, Orcherton, Hartley, Priddy, Petter, Miller, Dosanjh, MacPhail, Cashore, Ramsey, Sihota, Randall, Sawicki, Lali, Doyle, Gillespie, Robertson, Conroy, Janssen -- 35.

Voting nay: Dalton, Gingell, Reid, Campbell, Farrell-Collins, Plant, Sanders, Stephens, de Jong, Coell, Anderson, Nebbeling, Whittred, van Dongen, Thorpe, Penner, Weisgerber, Wilson, Wilson, Reitsma, Hansen, C. Clark, Symons, Hawkins, Abbott, Jarvis, Weisbeck, Chong, Coleman, Nettleton, Masi, McKinnon, Krueger, Barisoff, Neufeld -- 34.

The Chair: The motion carries.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: In the galleries at this moment are 76 students from Little Flower Academy in my riding. They're accompanied by their teacher Matt Coady. I hope everyone will make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just reviewing the count from the vote in committee, and I believe there was a tie of 35-35.

[ Page 3134 ]

The Speaker: I see the Clerk is now reviewing the count, so with members' indulgence, I will look at the count with him.

Members, apparently there is indeed a tie. As you know, the committee is master of its own jurisdiction. Therefore the only thing we can do to solve the problem is to have another vote. The committee needs to be reconstituted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, excuse me. I ask you to please bear with us, simply because I'm worried that we are going to commit something that will become precedent forever after. Therefore I want to make sure we do it right. We can all speculate about what this might mean.

The way we intend to proceed is to set aside the third reading proceedings, to recommit the bill and to have another vote, but only with those members who were in the chamber at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I see some members expressing some concern. Our predicament is that the committee must do this. The Chair of the committee has the casting vote, and to ask the individual who happened to be in the chair at the time to cast that vote is inappropriate, because the vote can really only be cast while the individual is in the chair. That's why we're suggesting that procedure. I hope that's clear to everybody.

And, as I say, we will ask all those members who were not in the chamber for the division to please absent themselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's nice to know we have some entertainment on a quiet Tuesday afternoon.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

[3:15]

Motion approved.

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
(continued)

Law Clerk: Hon. Chair, during the vote that the committee rise and report Bill 2 complete with amendments, the vote was inaccurately stated as 35 for and 34 against. In fact, the correct vote was 35 for and 35 against.

The Chair: There being a tie, and in accordance with practice, I cast -- are you ready for this? -- the casting vote in favour of the motion to report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 3.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

F. Gingell: We don't find Bill 3 to be a very contentious issue, but between second reading and committee stage I've given some thought to one issue that I'd like to bring up with the Minister of Finance, and that is this: generally accepted accounting practices are voluntary. Whatever the Institute of Chartered Accountants may lay down, they are still voluntary. Corporations are able to and have the right to prepare their financial statements in any way they wish, just as the Minister of Finance does in this province. It's up to the auditors of the corporations -- or the auditor general, in the case of the province -- to express an opinion. That opinion doesn't deal with the issue of correcting them to generally accepted accounting practices; it just deals in the generalities of whether or not they meet those tests.

It seems to me that the one thing that really does create a firm basis for the preparation of this kind of tax return -- and to bring it in on a consistent basis -- is to make our corporation capital tax meet the rules and the methods of presentation required in the federal large corporations tax. There aren't any ifs, ands or buts about that. The large corporations tax returns have to be prepared and filed in accordance with that legislation.

GAAP really is a much looser arrangement, subject to a great deal of interpretation, and as I say, it's not compulsory. Now, GAAP and GAAP processes appear throughout this bill. I don't intend to raise them in every section, but I wonder if perhaps the minister could advise the committee whether they have considered using some other standard to try to bring certainty and definition to the corporation capital tax.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess I'll try to answer and see if this is satisfactory or if it requires some further explanation for the member's benefit. As I understand it, what we're trying to do with these amendments is achieve a form of accounting within this legislation that is more standardized and consistent across the country. The touchstone for that is the generally accepted accounting practices. I guess the rationale for that is that this is a touchstone. I think the federal government is looking to it as well -- as we are, as opposed to simply assuming that the federal government's legislative choices have to govern.

[ Page 3135 ]

I suppose one could make that decision, but provinces obviously are interested in setting their own accounting policy and trying to make that accounting policy work within a national framework on a consistent basis. So rather than simply having the province attach itself to federal decisions, the choice that's been made here is to try to attach ourselves to these generally accepted accounting principles that are generated through a process involving chartered accountants -- the federal legislation, of course, is drafted and amended with those same principles in mind -- rather than slavishly attaching ourselves to a set of federal prescriptions and norms which might serve our purposes much of the time, but for reasons of provincial policy and autonomy might not in other cases.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that this question I'm going to ask you perhaps would have been better asked in a briefing session. But I must admit that when I got the briefing, I didn't really think about these issues. Are there any circumstances by which a change in generally accepted accounting practices is going to affect the way in which corporation capital tax is calculated? That is, some third-party committee, usually sitting in Toronto, is going to make a decision that will affect the way we calculate corporation capital tax in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that all that's required to comply with this legislation is for companies to provide to government the same set of statements, based upon the generally accepted accounting principles, that companies would be expected to report to their shareholders. So the intention here is not to require companies to prepare a different set of statements but to provide to government a common set of statements that are provided to shareholders.

F. Gingell: In response, I think that's a very good idea. But I also think that it is true that each of the corporations that has to file corporation capital tax -- I'm not sure what the exemptions are for the federal large corporations tax -- probably has to file a large corporations tax return with the federal government. So either could have been chosen. It's just that I think that if you want to simplify the issues to make it work better, I would have attached myself to the federal rules in preference to attaching them to GAAP, which is much more involved in the issues of income measurement than in proper evaluation of capital.

[3:30]

F. Gingell: One more issue is that in the responses I got from practitioners on thoughts they might have on this, I was given the following:

"Capital tax rules for partnerships require that partners calculate their pro rata share of total partnership paid-up capital, regardless of whether they are limited or general partners. The result is that limited partners' taxable paid-up capital may exceed their legal liability to the partnership. They're essentially paying capital tax on capital to which they are not entitled."

Hon. A. Petter: Staff inform me that they certainly have looked at the issue of partnerships in general and limited partnerships in particular. The goal here, as is the goal in much of these changes in the act, is to ensure that the tax cannot be avoided by shifting capital from one entity to another.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Staff have not been able to identify serious concerns that might arise from double-counting -- that's what I understand the member is suggesting happens. They're certainly prepared to continue to follow up and engage with private sector representatives who have concerns in this regard. To this point, staff advise me that they do not believe there are serious anomalies of the kind suggested in the area of limited partnerships, but I'm sure they'd be happy to engage with some of those who continue to think there are.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

F. Gingell: I've got two or three copies of this bill in different stages and bits and pieces. Okay, section 17 is when it comes in.

Section 17 approved.

On the title.

F. Gingell: When we talk about the title, it brings back those famous words: corporation capital tax. I've got this little light in my head that blinks on and off when anyone mentions the corporation capital tax.

I know that many of us made this speech in second reading of this bill, but I don't think that this government can hear this message too many times. I think it's a critically important message. I think it's critically important to all British Columbians. This government wants more jobs. This side of the House wants more jobs. We all want good-paying jobs to support families in British Columbia. It will reduce our costs in health care. It will reduce our costs in social services. It will reduce our costs in the Ministry for Children and Families. It will reduce our costs in the Ministry of Attorney General.

What we have to do. . . . Mr. Harcourt, the man that led this party into government, made the promise shortly after he was elected that at the first opportunity they could, they would repeal the corporation capital tax. He recognized that the corporation capital tax is bad for British Columbia. And that's not to repeal the sections that deal with financial institutions because of all the problems of income allocation that we've dealt with before. Any business considering where they will locate will take into consideration the issue of being taxed 

[ Page 3136 ]

on assets and investments before they've turned a profit. However small the amount of the tax is -- I know it's only 0.3 percent of capital -- it's a big issue in their minds.

The Chair: Pardon me for interrupting, hon. member. The purpose of debating the title is not to reopen second reading; it's to debate the appropriateness of the title of the bill. The Chair has been somewhat lenient.

F. Gingell: If my words have been properly recorded in Hansard, I'm happy to let the issue pass. I had allowed all those previous sections to pass on the understanding -- and the Minister of Finance understood that, I think -- that when we got to the title, I would make my usual speech on the issues surrounding corporation capital tax. I've practised it so many times, I've said it so many times, and I just wish someone across the House would start to listen.

It's an important thing. You can do more for British Columbians -- you can make yourself loved by them -- if you deal with some of these issues. Creating the right environment for investment and job creation in this province is number one, and the first thing you ought to do is repeal this rotten piece of legislation.

The Chair: Shall the title pass?

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance, with a caution that a short reply would be in order, considering that the Chair has been somewhat lenient with the previous member.

Hon. A. Petter: I expect no more indulgence from the Chair than was accorded the previous speaker, who gave. . . . It's true that I was anticipating him to give a usual speech. I wasn't sure which usual speech, but I should have guessed that that would be it.

I just say in response that obviously we in this House must all be mindful of the competitive position of British Columbia. I think what British Columbians find so troubling about the Liberal opposition's position is that they don't seem to take account of the full range of issues: a good education system, a good health care system, a clean environment. They seem to always assume that competitiveness means how much corporations are taxed. I assume, therefore, that they believe primarily in a trickle-down view of competitiveness, whereas this government believes in a build-up view of competitiveness.

We will continue to look at competitiveness and this legislation in that light and in the light of a government determined to build up British Columbia and keep it competitive based on all the reasons why people in British Columbia wish to remain competitive, not just the very narrow reasons that the member offered.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Bill 3, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Petter: The next order of business is committee stage of Bill 4.

CORRECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to enter into the debate at the committee stage of the Correction Amendment Act. There are a number of technical issues with respect to how the bill mechanically achieves its purpose. I will try and ask those questions that I think I need to understand the answers to.

I wonder if I could attempt to summarize the mechanics of the act -- if I could put it that way -- here in the context of section 1. What we have in the statutes of British Columbia, as they exist prior to this bill, is that by statute -- the Attorney General Act -- the Attorney General is the minister responsible for corrections institutions in British Columbia. The intent of the government in creating the new Ministry for Children and Families is to bring the operation of youth custody issues under the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families.

In order to achieve that integration in respect of all of the other programs that have moved into that ministry, the government was able to act by order-in-council. However, in the case of youth corrections and youth custody, there is the impediment of section 2(h) of the Attorney General Act. What this act does is remove that impediment and then create a situation where, as I understand it, the government can then, by order-in-council, designate the Minister for Children and Families as the minister responsible for youth custody and youth corrections.

One option available to the government would have been to amend the corrections legislation in such a way as to designate the Minister for Children and Families by legislation as the minister responsible for youth corrections. But that option has not been pursued. Instead, what is happening is that the statutory assignation to the Attorney General is being removed, and in its place a mechanism is being created that will then allow the executive council to determine from time to time, according to its wishes, as exercised by order-in-council, where the youth offenders belong. It is the intention of government that those program responsibilities be transferred to the Minister for Children and Families. Is that summary correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

[3:45]

Section 1 of the act does away with the definition of commissioner. The old act, the act as it now stands, defines the commissioner as the commissioner of corrections. It's not clear to me if the commissioner is being replaced by anybody, either in respect of adult correction or youth correction. I wonder if the minister can assist in explaining that part of the transition.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the new act it delegates. . . . The responsibility is with the minister, but the minister can delegate that responsibility to a staff member, or a number of staff, within the ministry.

[ Page 3137 ]

G. Plant: The definitions in section 1 also replace the old definition of the youth containment centre with something called a youth custody centre. I'm not sure if that's just a terminological change or if there's some substantive change involved. Perhaps I could have the minister's assistance on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is primarily simply more current language, if you will. Containment centres have a certain -- maybe they should -- sort of. . . . It's old-fashioned language, if you will. So the current language is youth custody centres, and is also language concurrent with what the federal government uses.

G. Plant: Am I right that at the end of this process we'll still have a Correction Act that, under the totality of its provisions, will deal with both adult and youth correction?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct. There will only be one act. It's just that the responsibility within the act is divided.

G. Plant: So the act will become the mechanism under which government will have the power to give particular responsibilities to some individuals in respect of adult correctional issues and also give different responsibilities in respect of young offender correctional issues to other people. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Plant: I noted that one of the provisions of the act which is not being amended is the definition of correctional centre. I must admit that I haven't spent enough time trying to put the old act together with the new act in a way that allows me to ask a focused question about this. But it was hard for me to see how that definition of correctional centre, which appears to include places of confinement for both adults and young offenders, would continue to have life -- that is, it's not clear to me what purpose that definition will continue to serve.

If there is a ready answer to that question, I'd be grateful for it. Perhaps I'll leave it on that basis.

Hon. P. Priddy: Within the act, there are different definitions. There is a definition within the act for correctional centre, which generally tends to be adults. There also is a separate definition for youth custody centre, if I've answered your question.

G. Plant: That reminds me of why I drew a circle around this when I read it a few weeks ago. I don't know that we need to pursue it, but it occurred to me that correctional centre was broad enough to encompass youth custody centres as a definition, and that in fact the act, as a matter of definition, does not necessarily create two separate classes of correctional institutions, one for youth and one for adults. But that is a very technical issue of how the wording of the statute will operate. If there's an easy answer to it, that's fine.

I think the higher-level issue is almost a question of principle; that is, it is intended -- as I understand the minister to have said earlier -- to ensure that there are different regimes of administration in place, one for youth and one for adults. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me answer the last one first; it's way easier. Yes, it is intended to have two regimes, if you will.

The first one, yes, is a technical question; you're quite correct. I feel this is like how many lawyers or how many politicians can dance on the head of a pin, in terms of my trying to answer. But in trying to define -- and I will take an additional question if I'm not answering this in a clear way -- youth custody centres, for instance, when you define it within the legislation, you end up with what is a very narrow sort of applicability within the legislation. I think that that is part of the technical answer to your question, but I'm happy to either take an additional question or find out other information for you.

G. Plant: I may take advantage of that opportunity. I just want to see if I can reconcile that answer with something later in the act.

As I read the act, the issue arises in the context of an unamended portion of section 34. Section 34 gives someone called the director the obligation of maintaining a program of inspection of all correctional centres. . . . Oh, I see; all right. I think someone reading that section would see the distinction. I thank the minister for the invitation to ask a second question on that, but I'll decline.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: Section 2 takes an important statement of principle or purpose from the old section 2. I think in the course of drafting these provisions, in order to achieve the larger objective it was determined that the purpose should remain, and it was probably thought desirable to state it more directly. The purpose is now stated as this: "The purpose of this act is to protect the community." I take it that from the minister's perspective there is no change of purpose here -- that this is intended to express a continuity of purpose from the old act. Am I correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct. We wanted the people reading the legislation to know that within the services that are moving over -- albeit for youth, and into a different ministry -- we still saw both the purpose and the direction of this act as being an issue of protection for the community, which often also means protecting not only the community but the people within it that may be at risk either to others or to themselves.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

[4:00]

G. Plant: I am looking for an opportunity to ask this question, and because we are dealing with section 24 but not quite dealing with section 26, I want to ask the question about section 25, which remains. I want to ensure that I understand it in relation to the general intention of the act as expressed in each of its amending provisions. Section 25, which will remain in its present form, says that the following provisions of the act, sections 25 to 32, "are intended for the protection and benefit of young persons and for the protection of the public, by assisting young persons to resolve their conflict with the law."

The first question is: am I following the sequence of the amending statute correctly in concluding that this provision 

[ Page 3138 ]

will continue to remain in the statute? If I'm right in that, can the minister explain how section 25 is to be reconciled with section 2, that purpose statement that appeared earlier?

Hon. P. Priddy: Section 2 -- which speaks to, if you will, the broad principle to protect the community -- actually applies to the entire Correction Act, which is why that is there. When we talk about helping young people to resolve their issues with the justice system, etc., then that's a narrower piece. But section 2 applies to the entire act.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Plant: I should have said at the outset. . . . The minister will recall that during the course of second reading debate, a number of members on this side of the House, including myself, spoke about the challenging aspects of administering the transition that is taking place here. In thinking about the proper context in which to raise those issues, it occurred to me that they are management-administration issues, and probably a better place to raise them will be the estimates debate. What I'm talking about here is the redeployment of resources under this new regime, so I suppose this is a friendly advance notice that I expect that the place that those issues will be canvassed is the estimates debate of the minister's ministry.

Section 7 does two things. First of all, it changes the attribution of the power from the Attorney General to the minister, which would be the designated minister. But then it also changes the word "must" to "may," which is to say that the old statute obliged the Attorney General to establish youth program committees, appoint members of those committees and so on, and the new statute will only make that permissive. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale behind that change.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: First, just in response to the beginning of the comment, I did take note of the questions raised in second reading and will be prepared to respond to those when you ask them. I thank the member for that.

In terms of the change from the word "must" to "may," there are a number of mechanisms within the ministry working with youth in corrections, such as the youth justice committee and the family court committees, which all have sort of similar purposes. So we might actually see that I might want to ask for a review of those, or I might ask for a review of a particular piece of work. Or we may see the jurisdiction of the child, youth and family advocate or of the children's commissioner come to apply to youth corrections. So that's the reason that it has been changed from "must" to "may."

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

G. Plant: Section 11 repeals section 30 of the act and substitutes a new section 30. One of the changes made is in subsection (3). Subsection (3) used to provide that the commissioner could transfer a young person from one centre to another; it will now provide that the minister may do that.

I suppose the first question is: is it a deliberate choice on the part of government to make the decision to transfer a decision that would be only made by the minister, as opposed to someone lower down in the hierarchy?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, there was not that particular intention. As I said at the beginning and as I think we talked about in an earlier section, because the responsibility has been delegated to me, I therefore have that ability simply to delegate it to a staff person within the ministry to do that. So that is not actually intended to do anything but change the language and bring the language up to date. It's not intended to be a directional or philosophical change.

G. Plant: I wanted to then move ahead to subsection (5). That allows the minister to permit temporary release of a young person in custody. I realize that this is probably a question that the minister doesn't know the answer to: is this a power that has in the past been exercised with regularity and frequency? Does the minister have any statistics available as to how often this power has been exercised? I ask that question in order to examine the continuation of the power in its context. It seems to me that if it's something that happens occasionally, then it takes on different dimensions than if it is a power that is exercised all the time.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is not a routine practice in almost any circumstance. It would be used more frequently in open custody centres than it would be in, for instance, a closed security centre -- a secure custody centre, if you will. It's very, very seldom used in a closed custody centre. It's used more frequently in an open custody centre, but it is not routine at all.

G. Plant: This is not a power that would in the past have been exercised directly by the minister. When that power is exercised, are there reasons given in writing? It says, for example, that the conditions for exercising this power of temporary release exist where there are medical, compassionate or humanitarian reasons. Is there a process that is undertaken before a decision is made?

Hon. P. Priddy: I thought I knew the answer, but I wanted to check with the expert first. Yes, there is. There are several things that would happen. There would be a process of community investigation to make sure that this is a valid reason, and so on. They would always be in writing, member.

G. Plant: It's good to have the opportunity to read these provisions. I take it that the intention of subsection (6) is that when the minister or his or her designate exercises that power of temporary release, the young person who has been released is nonetheless in effect still under the authority of the minister and of the statute.

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct, member.

Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

G. Plant: I want to rise at this point, because something moderately historic is about to happen. The Attorney General Act is not only an important part of the statutory law of British Columbia but also a place where one finds expressed some of the constitutional law of our country. As the chief law officer 

[ Page 3139 ]

of the Crown, the Attorney General is someone in whom powers that have a very long history are reposited. They go back into the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, from whence we derive this office and its important role in our government.

I was trying to read this bill again earlier today to try and unwrap its moderately complex interweaving of provisions that are not intended to create an overly complex structure. But, just as is the case with many amending statutes, it's sometimes a bit of a challenge to find out what is being changed and to actually make sense of all of it. Until today, I hadn't seen the loss of authority -- if I could put it that way -- by the Attorney General of his powers and responsibilities in respect of corrections institutions, and I finally found it here in section 17.

Section 17 is really the place where the government achieves the purpose. And as I said earlier, it's an interesting purpose. It's not a reassignment of the important responsibility over corrections institutions by statute, from one minister of the Crown to another minister of the Crown. Rather it is the release of the Attorney General from that statutory responsibility and the vesting in a general sense of that power -- the power to decide who has these important responsibilities -- the vesting of that responsibility now with cabinet, the executive council.

[4:15]

With the very considerable help of the library, we went as far back as the statutes of 1899. It seems that when chapter 5 of the statutes was enacted on February 27, 1899, the Attorney General was -- at least this is as far back as my research can go -- for the first time given the statutory responsibility which we in this House are about to take from him. Section 3(h) of the Attorney-General's Act, 1899, or An Act Respecting the Department of the Attorney-General, provided as follows: "The duties of the Attorney-General of British Columbia shall be as follows: . . . (h) He shall have the superintendence of prisons, and other places of confinement in houses of correction within the Province of British Columbia."

In various ways, with changes of wording to accommodate changing attitudes towards what this duty is about, this provision has remained on the statute books of British Columbia for almost a century. I think it is probably outside the core constitutional functions of the Attorney General as they have come down to that office from our constitutional history. Those functions are much more centrally focused around the fact that the Attorney General has the obligation and the duty of being the law officer of the Crown and ensuring that the Crown -- the government -- conducts its affairs in accordance with the law. But we have here -- and have had in British Columbia for a century, as near as I can figure it -- the superintendance of correctional institutions being found in the Ministry of Attorney General.

Now, it may be that my research is inadequate. I'm sure it is inadequate, given the very little time that was devoted to it. I didn't want this opportunity to pass without drawing attention to the fact that I think that what is being proposed here is a significant change. It is, as we on this side of the House have said, something that we support, in the sense that we are in support of the notion that responsibility for young offender corrections is something that the Ministry for Children and Families should take on in order to fully implement the purposes and the scope and the intent of the report of Judge Gove.

There is, of course, no particular reason in policy that I can think of why the Attorney General should lose statutory responsibility for adult corrections. It seems to me probably a decision -- and I will ask the minister a question about this in a minute -- that those drafting this bill saw an opportunity in which to move away from the cumbersome world of legislation, where the government has to come into this chamber and explain what it's doing and why it's doing it, and be held accountable for those decisions fairly directly. To move from that cumbersome but nonetheless fundamentally democratic world into the secrecy, the privacy, the sanctity, if you will, of the executive council, where decisions can be made that are frequently made without the same degree of public scrutiny -- and certainly without anything like the same degree of scrutiny in this chamber. . . . It is possible now for the government to change responsibility for young offender corrections and adult corrections without coming to this House to explain why it is doing that. I understand why all those who administer government believe strongly in the power of regulations and orders-in-council, because they're much more efficient than legislation.

I'm also not suggesting that I'm going to be urging my colleagues to oppose this particular provision of the bill, because without this particular provision of the bill, it would be difficult to give effect to the bill itself. Having regard to the long, long tradition of this important bill -- of this important statute on the statute books of British Columbia -- I am nonetheless interested in knowing what the government's rationale or reasoning is behind altogether repealing section 2(h) of the Attorney General Act. It does seem to me that it is not necessary, in order to give effect to the purposes of this bill, to repeal that section altogether. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess a couple of answers. . . And I am always, of course, delighted to come into the chamber and talk about all of the work that I am doing, so I can't imagine what the member might be referring to.

But in a serious response to the member's question, this, I think, was. . . . I don't think there was any particular intention behind it. Repealing it was certainly the easiest -- or the cleanest, if you will -- way to do that. The Attorney General will be designated by order-in-council as the individual responsible for adult corrections. It certainly doesn't change, in administration, practice or reality, the administration of adult corrections and criminal justice. There are provinces in the country where in point of fact the Attorney General has no responsibility for. . . . Prince Edward Island has no responsibility for adult corrections, and I think there actually may be one or two others. It would just seem to be the easiest and simplest way to do it.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

[ Page 3140 ]

On section 22.

G. Plant: I think that one of the things that happens when one is trying to sort out and understand the new organizational chart -- for want of a better term -- as created by a statute is sorting out why in some cases a director has some powers and in other cases the minister has them. I understand the minister's view is that in some cases where the minister has powers, those powers may be exercised by designates or persons who have authority from her.

It's not clear to me why in this case it's necessary to give express statutory reference to the minister's designate when that was not necessary in respect of the provisions around temporary absence. Again, I know that's a very technical question, but I just wasn't clear why there wasn't that kind of parallel language.

Hon. P. Priddy: As I understand this, member, as it refers to the Correction Act itself, there is a statutory ability to designate. Because we're talking about a different act here, which is the Victims of Crime Act, my understanding is that this was simply added so that there was some clarity, because it was a different act that we were talking about. If you need more, I can try and find it.

G. Plant: Well, I think I understand the answer, and I'm grateful for it. The challenge for lawyers -- even lawyers who become politicians who can't avoid being lawyers from time to time -- always is that if something is defined in one place for one purpose, there's a risk that people seeing it in another context may see an inconsistency and try and derive something substantive and important from the apparent inconsistency.

I think that about as far as we can go here now is to understand that, from the minister's perspective, there is no intentional inconsistency. But I can inform the minister that nothing that we have been saying for the last half-hour could ever be used in a court of law to explain anything about this statute. However, it is useful to have this debate, and I'm grateful for the minister's explanation.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

G. Plant: Is it the expectation of the minister that the person who becomes the provincial director for British Columbia, as defined by section 1 of the Young Offenders Act of Canada, will be the director of youth custody and corrections in British Columbia under this statute -- that is, they're intended to be the same person?

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Chair, because I'm not sure I am clear on it, can I ask the member to repeat his question, please?

G. Plant: Section 23 of the. . . . Oh, I may have misread the provision. I take it that the person who is defined by section 1 of the Young Offenders Act of Canada as the provincial director will be the same person as the director of youth corrections, from the provincial perspective -- that is, that what's intended is to have these things work together so there's one individual. Is that right?

Hon. P. Priddy: Correct, member.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

[4:30]

G. Plant: I know that the minister is not, herself, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; however, from the perspective of examining the intention of the government in respect of this bill, is there a timetable for implementation?

Hon. P. Priddy: The timetable for the implementation of the bill would probably be sometime around the end of June.

Section 28 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 4, Correction Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Point of Privilege

Hon. P. Priddy: I call second reading of Bill 9.

TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(second reading)

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is my pleasure today to introduce second reading of Bill 9, which is in fact landmark legislation that will ensure that British Columbia's vital tourism industry remains strong. The legislation creates a new, independent legislated agency called Tourism British Columbia, the purpose of which is to promote development and growth in the tourism industry and to increase revenue and employment in that industry throughout the province.

This legislation fulfils a commitment the Premier and our government made last year to provide the industry with a more effective way to market Super, Natural British Columbia to the world. This legislation builds on our government's commitment to boost B.C.'s performance as the best job-creating province in Canada. This bill is also part of our job creation strategy, which we announced in the recent provincial budget.

Tourism is growing worldwide as an industry, but competition is also growing. Although British Columbia has outperformed the rest of Canada in attracting new visitors, new players in the international marketplace have the potential to take market share away from traditionally strong destinations such as British Columbia. We are in effect at a crossroads, 

[ Page 3141 ]

where our future success will depend on new and carefully planned partnerships between industry and government. To meet these challenges for future success, our approach must change. We must ensure that we work closely with industry as we move ahead.

In that spirit, my ministry and I have worked closely with representatives from all sectors within the tourism industry in all regions of the province. We determined that the creation of a sustainably funded legislated agency was in fact the best way to reach our mutual goals. The goals that we are putting forward are (1) to stimulate revenues in the industry, and (2) to create 25,000 new jobs in the tourism industry for British Columbians over the next five years. We believe that the target is realistic and will probably be exceeded, if past performance is any indicator.

Since 1991 B.C. tourism revenues have grown from $4 billion a year to an estimated -- perhaps underestimated -- $7 billion. The number of tourism-related businesses has grown from 10,000 to 15,000 -- that's 5,000 new businesses, most of which are small businesses. There are currently more than 223,000 British Columbians employed in tourism-related jobs. That's 12.4 percent of our workforce, or one out of every eight jobs in British Columbia.

This fast-growing industry provides benefits to all groups and all regions in the province, but it's particularly important to young people who are seeking that all-important entry-level job and first work experience. Some 45 percent of all tourist-related jobs are held by people under 25, but as well as entry-level jobs, our tourism industry provides an incredible range of employment and business opportunities, including management positions, skilled trades and professional careers.

Tourism today is a key source of diversity and growth in our economy. We believe that it can and in fact must become an even stronger factor in B.C.'s future. The industry's leading economists are projecting a 3.1 percent annual growth rate in tourism-related occupations. That adds up to at least 25,000 new jobs over the next five years. In doing this projection, we ensured that a conservative economic methodology was used, so we are perhaps -- in fact, likely -- understating the potential job growth. We can't take anything for granted, however. We must take action to ensure that the goals we are outlining here do in fact become a reality.

As the Minister of Tourism, I'm the advocate for the tourism industry and tourism interests in the province, and I'm therefore proud to bring forward this legislation to establish Tourism British Columbia. Industry and government agree that we need a new structure for marketing and developing tourism in B.C. to ensure that our shared goals are reached. The new agency is built on consultation, and it's certainly something that industry wanted. It's something that government wanted, as well. It's something that all stakeholders have been working toward. In fact, I am aware that the tourism industry has wanted this kind of legislation for at least two decades.

The new Tourism British Columbia has many advantages. First, the new agency features a secure, permanent funding formula that will strengthen Tourism B.C.'s ability to develop long-term marketing and development strategies with industry partners. Some 20.64 percent of the existing hotel room tax will now go directly to Tourism British Columbia to fund its business activities. This new funding formula ensures that provincial tourism revenues are reinvested directly into the industry to help create more employment opportunities for British Columbians.

This agency, it's worth saying, is a first anywhere in the world so far as we could determine in our rather extensive research into this marketing. As the tourism sector grows, the agency's revenues will also grow. Under the legislation, the agency will gain the authority and opportunity to partner with industry and to raise funds from the private sector and other sources. None of this was possible under the old way of doing business. As well, the new agency will operate more closely with the private sector, and this will provide industry with greater influence over marketing and promotional activities, which are things they do very well.

Tourism B.C. will be much more industry-driven than it has been in the past. The new agency's 15-member board of directors will have legal, financial and management authority. The board will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and industry will make recommendations for ten of the 15 directors. The board will reflect the diverse sectors of the tourism industry and the best interests of all British Columbians. Finally, by moving to independent status, Tourism British Columbia will have greater flexibility to capitalize on new opportunities and to help create 25,000 new jobs by the year 2001.

I'm certain the newly restructured and revitalized Tourism B.C. will be a major asset in helping industry surpass this projection. The new corporation will be responsible for: marketing British Columbia as a tourism destination; providing information services to tourists; research and training; encouraging enhanced standards for accommodation, facilities, services and amenities for visitors; and generating additional funds for tourism programs. Tourism B.C. will have full control over well-known marketing assets such as the Super, Natural British Columbia and SuperHost trademarks.

Broad policy matters such as those reflecting tourism interests and decisions over land and resource use will remain with the ministry, and this legislation does not require amendments to the Tourism Act. Under the legislation I've introduced, the new agency replaces the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency that was established in April 1996. To ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, Tourism B.C.'s current SOA board, in consultation with stakeholders, is evaluating how the 1997-98 budget can be most effectively applied to sustain a range of essential programs. The board has been hearing submissions from industry groups on ways to enhance tourism across the province by creating better marketing, business development and visitor programs.

The consultation process is continuing as we speak with a full and timely review of all Tourism B.C. programs to establish the new agency on a strong footing. This review is vital to ensure that our industry keeps pace with our competitors and that it's well positioned to capitalize on the opportunities that lie ahead. Also during this transition period, Tourism B.C's board has allocated six-month interim funding to support regional industry partnership programs.

Bill 9 is the result of an intensive process of consultation with the industry, representing all sectors of tourism in all parts of the province. We're on the threshold of a new way in which government and industry work together to market Super, Natural British Columbia to the world. I'm excited to be part of this era, and I look forward to working with all stakeholders in successfully launching the new Tourism British Columbia. By moving Tourism B.C. closer to industry, the people of B.C. are better served. Tourism B.C. and its board will do an excellent job of marketing Super, Natural British Columbia to the world and of meeting our shared goals of increasing revenue and employment.

[ Page 3142 ]

Establishing this new agency works with other initiatives which our government is taking to promote tourism in B.C. For example, the province played a leadership role in the restructuring of Canadian Airlines International, and in the recent provincial budget we announced a 50 percent phased reduction in the international jet fuel tax -- from 4 cents to 2 cents a litre by 1999 -- to increase the competitiveness of all carriers and protect B.C.'s position as a prime travel destination. Our ongoing infrastructure investment in roads, ferries and transportation will help bring more visitors to our wonderful province and give them easier access to all the excellent opportunities our tourism industry provides across the province.

Now we have a new, improved Tourism B.C. to lead us into the twenty-first century. I'd like to invite other members of the Legislature to comment on this legislation.

[4:45]

We all recognize that tourism is a rather dynamic industry. It is one that continues to thrive and grow in British Columbia despite a number of recessions that have hurt other industries. Admittedly, legislation was required to provide some protection to the industry.

However, we have to also recognize that promises that are made must be kept and not broken. I would like to remind the minister that in fact the culmination of what is occurring now also occurred about a year and a half ago, back in February of 1996, when a deal was supposedly struck, and then in April of 1996, when the Premier made an announcement and assured us that the special operating agency at that time would carry on and allow the tourism industry to flourish.

We were somewhat disheartened to find that the special operating agency last year was not legislated -- that it did not carry the full weight of its intention. We had to go through a crisis last November and December to establish a legislated agency, which we are hopeful this government will abide by.

We are concerned that jobs for youth are highly dependent on the tourism industry, so we are looking forward to this act in fact being able to protect and provide for those 25,000 jobs that the government expects to be created in the tourism industry.

As I mentioned, the industry first signed this deal with the NDP government last February. At that time, recommendations were made that the industry was looking for some independence, some autonomy, so that they had some control over their industry. I recognize that the minister is suggesting that this new legislation will replace what was initiated, but I am somewhat concerned. Recognizing what was asked of the then temporary minister last year regarding the special operating agency, we were assured that the special operating agency created at that time would work just fine. Those are the words of the then temporary Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

We are looking for stability, we are looking for certainty, and we are hopeful that this legislation will provide that. The legislation is attempting to increase revenue and employment, and that is something we here on the opposition benches are also looking forward to. We are also looking forward to ensuring that the agency can be assured that there will be secure funding and that in fact it will be permanent. We have seen cases where legislation has been introduced where in fact there hasn't been certainty, there hasn't been predictability, and there hasn't been stability. Throughout the debate and throughout committee stage, I'm sure we will be posing those questions to the minister to find out and to get assurance that that in fact will be occurring.

We are also looking at the structure of the corporation being established, the board of directors. I noted in the minister's comments that there will be 15 directors, as stated in the act. However, the minister also alluded to the fact that the industry will only offer recommendations for ten of those 15 directors. If this is truly to be an independent agency and corporation, we have to wonder whether or not the ministry will allow some changes to that.

We are concerned that if it's supposed to carry out its mandate, if it's supposed to have the direction that it wishes to take, it should be able to also offer recommendations for all 15 directors, bearing in mind that I'm sure the government will offer some suggestions. I'm hopeful that the minister will be looking at that area and will perhaps provide us with some comments -- and whether or not the minister thinks that the comments we make will be warranted.

We have also spoken to members of the tourism industry over the last year. Prior to my being elected, I know there were other members who had been dealing with the tourism industry quite extensively. They are looking for some ability to sustain growth in B.C.'s tourism industry, they are looking to provide a good form of marketing, and they are looking to promote tourism in what they feel is the best way.

However, funding has always been a problem, and the funding will continue to be a problem, because this is the one particular area where spending is required. I made a comment last year when we were debating these estimates that of all the ministries, this is the one area where spending is a must, because this is the one ministry where revenue is directly impacted by the level and amount of marketing that is done.

Given that, last year in the estimates we did ask whether the $23 million that was provided could be sustained and would be available. I know at that time that the temporary minister did not give us any assurance. I guess we should have taken that as a warning that this would be coming along shortly, that the tourism industry wasn't able to depend on that.

We are looking to see that cuts to this new legislated agency, which is now providing roughly $18 million -- which is some $7 million less than what they had anticipated two years ago, but $5 million less than the $23 million that was provided last year -- representing a 25 percent cut, will not continue over the course of the next five or ten years.

We in fact recognize that it took some five years to build up the marketing funding for tourism -- some five years from the then Minister of Tourism, the member for Okanagan-Boundary at the time. I would have to say that he did an admirable job of ensuring that tourism funding did increase over the years to reflect the fact that tourism should be marketed here in British Columbia.

So with that, I have to suggest to the minister that the $18 million proposed for this year. . . . We are hoping and looking forward to the fact that this agency will allow for the growth in that marketing funding and that the $18 million will establish itself in the years to follow to the $23 million and then some. We would have to look for this legislation to provide the permanence and the security that it says it will so that 

[ Page 3143 ]

when the hotel tax revenues increase, there will be no capping in that area. That is the only way that this agency will be assured that they have a free hand and an arm's-length approach in dealing with tourism marketing.

The minister also spoke of infrastructure development. We couldn't agree more that there are parts of the province that require infrastructure development more than the lower mainland or the Island here, where the destinations are pretty clear to visitors. Whether or not the ministry will continue to look at aiding those areas so that the marketing will be fruitful. . . . After all, there's really little sense in promoting an area that doesn't provide the infrastructure -- in terms of the transportation and hotel accommodation that is needed -- or for the marketing to occur if that is not in place. So we are looking for the ministry to continue to work in those areas and to continue to consult with the industry.

One of the rather disturbing things we've heard in the last little while that this ministry also has to recognize is that policies introduced by other ministries affect tourism and tourism marketing. There has to be continued consultation in that area. What I'm speaking about in particular are the recent increases in angling fees. I know the minister has probably received a number of letters -- as has the Minister of Environment -- because the policy that was introduced works at cross-purposes with tourism marketing. You have one agency spending millions of dollars on marketing and attempting to have visitors in those areas that offer that kind of tourism and sports, and then you have a government policy that works against that. There clearly has to be some consultation amongst ministries to ensure that we aren't wasting our dollars and just seeing them going down the drain.

So I am looking forward to the minister speaking to us a little bit further on those kinds of issues. I am looking to see that this particular legislative agency has the independence that she has stressed that it has. We've heard time and time again in these chambers that we are concerned about broken promises and things which are signed and committed to that have not in fact been committed to. This is the one piece of legislation which the industry has wanted for some time, and we will attempt in every way to ensure -- and I believe the minister agrees -- that it will provide that kind of security, that kind of predictability and that kind of stability. With that, I'll turn the floor over to other members.

P. Reitsma: My colleague from Oak Bay has touched on most of the points, and I'd like to reiterate some of them. Yes, I'm certainly in support of this particular bill. It's very hard not to support something that this particular side of the House has so vigorously debated and promoted. After the promises made in 1995 and then again in 1996 -- and indeed promises were made in April of 1996 -- agreements were signed, hands were shaken and pictures were taken. Lo and behold, after two years of consultation and communication, we had a deal. We had a deal by the Premier and whoever the Minister of Tourism was -- actually we've had quite a few over the last year, and hopefully this revolving-door attitude will not change. . . . The agreement was made and signed; pictures were taken; hands were shaken. This is a guarantee. You can take the money to the bank, even if it's in a deficit position. However, that's what happened, I suppose.

Having said that, we debated vigorously in the estimates last year that in order to make this come true. . . . It was the position of the opposition, the Liberal Party, not to oppose but to critique, in a positive way and manner, that in order to agree to this, we must have legislation for funding. The minister at that time did not deem it to be necessary. I'm pleased to see -- and we will be debating this -- that the legislated funding will become the cornerstone in terms of the stability and the certainty that we are looking forward to in our industry for the next couple of years. I applaud that. That's what we wanted, so it's very hard for us not to agree with that. In fact, we do agree with it.

Hon. Speaker, this particular industry, the tourism industry, has been part of my life for some 31 years. I, too, have organized and started tours -- the well-known Totem Circle Tour -- and I've taken tours all around B.C. and all around the Island. Last year and this year I made a point of visiting many of the communities to find out about tourism and how business is doing. I've taken tours all around the world as part of my job. I've been in the Galapagos, in Ecuador and Peru, in Egypt, Kenya and Tanzania and in the Orient and China and lots of places.

Let me assure you that B.C. competes when it comes to sunsets and sunrises, and it competes when it comes to beaches and to wildlife. I always find it kind of amusing that indeed we even compete with Alberta's badlands, because we've got some dinosaurian attitudes around here as well. But be that as it may, we in B.C. compete with the best of the rest of the world.

[5:00]

I would hope -- and we'll be touching on this as we go through the bill clause by clause -- that this board. . . . We'll be talking about it, because we have the assurance from COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, that under the memorandum of understanding, it is guaranteed that a certain percentage and a certain number of those who are going to be sitting on the board will be from that particular industry. Those board members who have been proposed by COTA will be the ones who are going to be appointed.

I do not wish to see another regional health board . . . that type of philosophy. I do not wish to see another Forest Renewal B.C. board, whereby those members are simply appointed by government and do whatever the government tells them under the guise of "You won't be there the next time" or "You won't be getting the funding."

It is very important that this board be at arm's length, that it be independent, so they can make up the schedules, the marketing tools, because marketing has to be done. In the travels that I've done over the last two years, many of the areas outside the golden triangle -- which is Victoria, Vancouver, Whistler -- all seem to be doing fine, which is good, by the way, because it's good for all of us. But there have been many concerns expressed and complaints levied that they're not getting an adequate amount of marketing in those particular areas. That is extremely important, because what is good for Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler is good for the rest of the province. And what is good for the Okanagan, the Kootenays and the north is also good for the rest of B.C. We'll be talking about that later.

Sadly, I must say again that in the past -- and hopefully, this is an opportunity and a conduit for change -- we could 

[ Page 3144 ]

not believe the words of the government. The actions spoke much louder than the words: "Yes, we agree to the previous funding." It was guaranteed for three years -- $25 million, and slightly less over the next couple of years.

The fact of the matter is that after the election nothing happened in terms of legislation, and under the guise of a Crown corporation, that amount of $20 million is not put into the consolidated revenue statements, into another Crown corporation. The funding went from $25 million down to $18 million -- a 25 percent cut. Might I remind you that I heard nothing from the government benches in terms of decrying that reduction.

This grant is not a grant; it is not a subsidy; it is an absolute investment in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the ratio of new jobs in the tourism industry and the ratio of current jobs in the tourism industry speak volumes, and it outpaces and outperforms any other industry in B.C.

Last but not least -- and we'll be debating this -- I listened with some curiosity to the minister talking about funding having been given to big corporations like CP, etc. I wonder if the minister forgot to look at the page where it mentioned angling fees. Earlier this year we went up to the north. We talked to the guides, we talked to the hotel managers, we talked to the restaurant managers, we talked to the other tour guides -- the small entrepreneurs -- and the uncertainty. . . . The fee increases are sometimes 1,000 percent. I hope the minister realizes this, and I hope something is going to be done about it. It's still not to late to roll it back.

The uncertainty created was devastating for our industry in that area. People often make reservations and determine where to go half a year to a year in advance, particularly those coming from outside this continent. As a small business person, I know that rather than passing on a couple of hundred dollars and giving an unpleasant surprise to your guests coming for a week or two, you absorb that. But you can't do that for too long. The outcry from the industry in that area was that there was virtually no consultation and no communication in terms of the angling fees. So I hope that the minister can use her persuasion to talk to the other minister involved. It's not too late to roll that back.

Once again, we are in support of this particular bill. It is a good one. We don't always criticize; it certainly is something that my party has advocated for a long, long time. The legislation of the funding is absolutely paramount to its success, as is the composition of the board.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for introducing this bill; it is much needed. It's a promise that the industry has had many, many times, but I'm glad to see that a minister has had the courage to bring it forward for tourism in British Columbia.

I was particularly encouraged with your opening comments about independence. We on this side think that is very, very important. I'm glad to hear that you feel that it's very important, because we know that the industry -- the people that work every day, that invest their money every day, that put their lives on the line every day -- also believes that operating independent of the government is critical to their success. So we hope that this government is very, very serious about its comments on independence, and we will work with you and encourage you in that direction.

We talk about stability. We talk about certainty, and we say that this tourism industry of British Columbia is going to create in excess of 20,000 jobs in the next five years. I ask this government to remember that this industry is a fragile industry. It's an industry that is working very hard. But the taxes in British Columbia are too high -- both the payroll taxes and the business taxes. And yes, these small businesses also pay corporation capital tax, and that is going to stymie their development and stymie job creation in the province. I would hope that in time this government would see the error of its ways and would truly be supportive of this tourism industry and job creation in British Columbia.

I think some other areas that this government has to look at to truly be supportive of the tourism industry are the WCB labour standards and land use. Land use in particular, as the minister knows, is a great consideration of this industry as it moves forward in its development and its job creation. So we would very much hope that this minister would accept that challenge and champion, on behalf of the tourism industry of British Columbia, meaningful input with respect to tourism development in the province.

If I could now move to independence, this bill calls for 15 board members, of whom only ten are from industry. If I understood correctly and if I read this bill correctly, they would be recommended; they're not guaranteed. I think if we truly mean the word "independence. . . ." Too many times -- I'm not going to repeat them all here today -- we have seen government interference when talking about independence but not allowing it to happen. I hope that this minister is true to the word "independence," and when we bring forward some constructive suggestions and perhaps amendments as we move through this bill, we can work together to create and ensure independence. I hope that very, very much.

I am also concerned, because in looking to the future, we have to look at the actions of the past. As the minister knows, there was a Tourism British Columbia special operating agency which did talk about funding certainty. I'm not going to ask for increased funding; I'm just going to ask that people keep their promises. That's what working people of British Columbia want, that's what investment in tourism wants, and that's what investors who are again putting their families and their lives and all of their assets on the line want. They just want some certainty.

So I would very much hope and again challenge this minister to ensure that clawbacks that we were assured would not happen in the previous agreement will, in fact, not happen. The tourism industry can then move forward and focus all of its energies on developing its businesses and creating jobs, not on having to come to Victoria for endless meetings and not on having to redraft agreements 13 and 14 times, which is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. We have to develop trust and understanding if we're going to move forward.

I almost regret having to bring this up, but I think it's important for the minister to hear it. It was only two years ago that the UBCM was assured that stability is going forward. I would hope that somewhere during these debates the minister can give us personal assurances about certainty and a commitment that cannot be challenged by anyone in the future, so the tourism industry not only gets the bill but starts to get people putting their personal commitment behind things. Let's start walking the talk. Let's start fighting and living for what we believe in. Quite frankly, the tourism industry of British Columbia is worth fighting for, as we all know.

The other grave concern I have is that we've announced this project agreement three times. Three times. It was announced in February, it was announced in April -- and then it was announced again this year. You know, one would 

[ Page 3145 ]

never want to think that the government is spinning things for their own purposes and trying to project that they're doing a lot more than they really are. I mean, we know they wouldn't do that. We know they care about the tourism industry.

I would just hope that we could move through. . . . I don't know whether the memorandum of understanding that supports this legislation has finally been signed off. If it has, first of all I should say congratulations. But if it hasn't, in order that people can focus all of their time on building successful businesses throughout British Columbia, please move quickly to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is signed and attached to this bill so people can move forward with their lives.

[5:15]

This industry in British Columbia has waited a long time. They have worked endlessly with this government over the past three to four years. They have worked with situations that have been very, very difficult for the industry. They have given so much of their personal time. For some, their businesses have been adversely affected. But this is truly a historic opportunity for all of us in this House to work together for the tourism industry in British Columbia.

I know that the B.C. Liberals -- and I'm hopeful that the minister and her caucus -- will work together on behalf of the tourism industry in British Columbia so that they can have independence, so that they can have certainty, so that they can have stability and so that we can create an investment climate that creates the much-needed jobs that we all want. We know that if people are working, they're healthier, and if people are healthier, they're more productive in our society.

In many ways we have many common goals here. As we introduce some changes to this positive legislation, I look forward to the minister's support and to the government's support. On that note, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to address this bill.

C. Clark: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this bill as well, because tourism is such an important industry for British Columbia. It is a huge generator of jobs and revenue for government, and revenue for government means health care and education for British Columbians. It's important that we have jobs in British Columbia, or we won't have taxes. And if we don't have revenue going to government, we won't have health care and education. Jobs are where it all starts. Tourism jobs in this province are absolutely essential to maintain our quality of life.

I want to speak to a couple of aspects of this bill, and particularly to look back to a little before the election, to April 22, when the Premier made some commitments about funding tourism in British Columbia. He made some commitments about how important it was, and he used those commitments to indicate that he really cared about the tourism industry in British Columbia. He attached some numbers to those commitments.

But do you know what? The numbers provided for in this bill are going to be different from the promises the Premier made just before the election. Gee, I can't say that that's too much of a surprise. The list of broken promises from this government keeps growing and growing and growing. This bill represents another in that long line of broken promises. The Premier made a firm commitment of $23 million to fund this agency, and the government has only been able to come up with $18 million. I believe that when the government makes a commitment, it should keep it, particularly to show goodwill to an industry that is so critical to our economy, that plays such a critical role in job creation in British Columbia. I think the way for a government to demonstrate that it cares about what happens to the tourism industry is to keep the commitments it makes to that industry.

The way for the government to show that it doesn't care about what happens to the tourism industry is for the government to just go ahead and break all those commitments -- to go to that industry and say: "Look, you better take whatever scraps we're prepared to throw you, because that's all there is. That's all we're going to give you. Guess what. Our budget numbers were wrong and we need the money." That's essentially the genesis of this legislation. That's essentially where this legislation came from, and I think all members of the House would do well to remember that.

As well, I want to speak a little bit to the aspects of consultation that we hope will be part of the way the government operates in its relationship with the tourism industry in British Columbia. That certainly would be a change. It would be a big change if the government decided that it wanted to consult with the tourism industry before it made changes to the rules that govern it. It would be a big change if, for example, the government decided that when they were going to raise taxes and increase fees, they would actually go out to the industry and consult with them about the level of fees they might be able to sustain or withstand, and then take that information back and use it as the basis for making their legislation. It would be a big change if government decided to go out, speak to people in the industry, solicit their views and then use those view to formulate legislation. Now, I know that's the way it's supposed to happen. Our whole system of government is premised on that idea -- or it's supposed to be. But that's just not the way it works in British Columbia.

We can use angling fees as a perfect example. The Minister of Environment jacked them up without telling the industry, without any consultation. She says there was consultation. I want to give the House an example of the kinds of consultation the minister undertook before she decided to whack them with these new fees.

The ministry went around and talked to people in the industry and came up with the recommendation that, yes, the industry would be prepared to contribute some more money through increased fees if that money went to conservation. The ministry took the results of that consultation back to Victoria and decided that somehow it meant an increase of over 1,000 percent to some of the fees, and that 40 percent of that money would go straight into general revenue to cover up the budget fiasco that this government created before the election and is now desperately trying to cover up. That's the most recent example of consultation with the tourism industry. And I understand that that wasn't something that the Tourism minister undertook.

[ Page 3146 ]

I would suggest, though, that this cavalier attitude about consultation is an attitude that's rife throughout this government. It's not just the Ministry of Environment that fails to consult; it's not just the Ministry of Environment that ignores the views of stakeholders; it's not just the Minister of Environment who in the past has said, "Well, we'll bring in regulation," without any forethought or any analysis of the impact that that would have on the industry.

I'd suggest that that attitude is rife throughout this government. And I would suggest that that's an area where this government should be looking to make some changes in its attitude, because it is precisely that attitude -- that arrogant attitude they have toward governance -- which is killing jobs in British Columbia.

The people who know how to create jobs in our province are in the private sector, they're not in government. They're not sitting in Victoria in offices, scribbling away on their desks; they're out there creating jobs. They're out there making investments, coming up with ideas, putting them into action, hiring people. That's how jobs are created. It is those people in the industry that know how to create jobs, and the only way that the government is going to encourage them to create jobs is to start listening to them. This government's record on listening to people is pretty poor indeed.

In the northwest of British Columbia, they estimate that the ecotourism industry, from the angling and guiding industry up there, contributes $16 million to their local economies. These are economies, of course, that everyone will know have already been devastated by this government's poorly thought out policies -- communities like Terrace that are being devastated by this government's policies in forestry; communities that have been devastated by the decline of the mining industry in British Columbia because of this government's policies. And now, more recently, the Minister of Environment has decided that, well, it's time to go after the tourism industry, too.

Shutting down one industry isn't enough; shutting down two still isn't enough. So now they're going after a third; now they're going after the freshwater fishing industry in northwestern British Columbia. That has a big impact on tourism up there. Tourism is one of the only areas where local residents had expected some growth in the economy, where they'd expected that there might be jobs there in the long term. But the poorly thought out policies and the lack of consultation have meant that these industries are in real trouble.

Some of the lodges up in northwestern British Columbia are getting over 50 percent cancellations of their business for this season coming up, and those cancellations are happening after they've spent the money. One lodge owner up there told me and the local media that the new fees for him, as he calculated it -- the new taxes that the government has brought in on the angling industry -- were going to cost him over $100,000. And he said that that year he'd only earned $45,000 from his lodge.

Now, I don't think that's a great way to create jobs. When we have some lodge owners up there. . . . One lodge owner in particular has decided that they're going to lay off every single member of their staff and run the lodge just by themselves. I don't think that's a great job creation policy, and I don't think this government knows where it's going with job creation.

I don't think this government has any kind of a plan with regard to tourism. If they did, the Tourism minister would go to the Environment minister and say: "Hey, wait a minute. Look what you're doing. You're devastating this industry." And as the guardian in cabinet for the tourism industry, as the guardian on behalf of all those people that work in that industry, it is the minister's responsibility to stand up and say: "Hey, wait a minute. These fees, these new taxes, are going to have a terrible impact on this industry."

But you know, I don't think that the Tourism minister has done that; or if she has done it, she's not being heard. I'm very, very hopeful that the Minister of Environment might start listening, if not to the Minister of Tourism, at least to the stakeholders out there. But there's an example of a lack of consultation and what it can do -- the devastating impacts that the failure to consult can have on a whole industry.

I want to talk a little bit, too, about autonomy for the board. We know that if the board doesn't have autonomy, if politicians -- this government's politicians in particular -- are allowed to have a say in the decisions that are made by the board, those decisions won't necessarily be the right ones. If you don't consult, then you try and influence the board, and the board doesn't have the autonomy it requires, it won't come out with good decisions at the end of the day. And that's a serious issue that the industry has expressed with this legislation.

I want to touch on an issue, too, that I know the government and most British Columbians are very familiar with, and that's the integrity of the money that is allowed to the board. We've heard the comments of some of the members quoted back to them in this House again and again about how the B.C. forest renewal fund was going to have some integrity to it, how it was not going to be touched, how it was not going to be raided, how no greedy minister would ever get their hands on that money.

[5:30]

We're all waiting to see what will happen with the fisheries renewal fund. I wonder if no greedy minister will ever be able to get their hands on that. The Minister of Environment is collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in new fees and taxes -- probably much less than she expects after the depressed demand for fishing licences in British Columbia -- from the fishing industry. And she's giving 40 percent of it straight to general revenue. It's not even going into the dedicated fund, which is supposed to. . . .

So the forest renewal fund. . . . They collected the money, they told people what they were collecting it for, and it went into the fund. Now it's not being spent on what it was supposed to be spent on. The Environment minister has a much more direct way of going about this. She just takes it and then delivers half of it directly to general revenue. You don't have to bother with any of the sideways shifts.

[ Page 3147 ]

That's a big source of concern for us in Bill 9 -- the fact that this fund needs to be untouchable. It needs to be a fund that the tourism industry can depend on: stable funding over the long term and money that no greedy minister can get his or her hands on ever, in perpetuity. That's what we would like to see in this government's legislation. That's an attitude we would like to see pervade the cabinet.

Ecotourism is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, and I don't know if anyone on the other side of the House is necessarily aware of that. It's an industry that we certainly need to depend on. And when you say ecotourism, that includes everything from hunting and fishing to wildlife-nature tours. It's amongst the fastest-growing industries on earth. You know, those industries are industries that we need to nurture. We need to nurture the hunting industry and the fishing industry in British Columbia. Those are industries that we need to care for, because they're growing industries.

I know that some ministers have gone up to visit the hunting conventions and have not received too warm a welcome. But I suspect that's because they know that this government's attitude towards the tourism industry is weak indeed, and that this government's commitment to supporting that industry is weak indeed.

What we need from this government -- and what British Columbians need from this government -- is an understanding of how important those industries are and how those industries create much-needed jobs in British Columbia, and that we are going to need those jobs, particularly if the rest of the economy is slowing down. If the logging and mining industries are slowing down, we're certainly going to need some industries that are picking up some steam, because people in British Columbia need to work. I'd remind the government that it's in their interest, certainly, to have people working, because I know that this government is addicted to collecting those people's taxes.

I'll leave my place in the debate with just those few points. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I'm sure that the government will take those concerns into account as we continue debate on the bill. I will end with the comment that although I certainly do have some very grave reservations about this bill, it's a beginning, it's a start, I suppose, and it's something that I intend, in the end, to vote in favour of.

G. Bowbrick: I'm sure I'll take less time than some of the previous speakers. But I thought it was. . . .

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I note the member for North Vancouver-Seymour applauding, and it's advice he would well take for himself.

I'm thankful for the final words of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, because she reminded me of something: that is, this opposition is actually going to support this bill. If anybody has been following this debate for the last half hour or 45 minutes, and listening to, I think, the last four opposition members speak to the bill, they spoke about all kinds of things. They were relatively negative; there were many criticisms. They referred to all kinds of things. They referred to Forest Renewal B.C., they referred to the mining industry, they referred to the UBCM and municipal grants, and they referred to angling fees. I even heard another plug -- which we've come to expect, time and time again -- for the abolition of the corporation capital tax.

But this is a bill. . . . It's entitled Tourism British Columbia Act. I'm glad that the opposition members have acknowledged that it is a good piece of legislation. I understand they have some concerns about it, and I'm sure their concerns will be addressed at committee stage when they're able to put questions to the minister.

This agency that is being set up under this act is, of course, an independent agency. There are a few points that have been raised by opposition members that I should address. I think some general comments about tourism would be appropriate, as well. As I say, it's an independent agency and, as the minister said, it appears to be unique in the world.

I know the opposition members have raised concerns about board representation, which is referred to in section 2. They're concerned about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointing all of the board members. And of course, one of the reasons one would do that would be to ensure that there is regional representation, to make sure that smaller communities in the province are represented on the board and that the tourism industry -- as it's represented in those communities -- is represented on the board -- so that it's not dominated by Vancouver and Victoria, for example.

As well, I think it's worth pointing out. . . . And I'm sure that as I explain this, the opposition members will hardly agree with what I'm about to say. I'm going to touch on funding a little bit later, but the fact is that funding for this agency comes from tax dollars, from the Hotel Room Tax Act. Now, it only makes sense that government appoint board members and that there be some mechanism for accountability. If those dollars were spent improperly by this new agency, we know that opposition members would be the first to leap to their feet in question period and demand accountability from this government and, in particular, from the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Therefore it makes a great deal of sense to ensure that there is an accountability mechanism. That's why a Crown agency such as this, which is going to spend tax dollars, should be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

To touch briefly on the issue of tourism, because I've heard some members opposite also raise concerns about whether members on this side recognize the importance of tourism in British Columbia. . . . I guess, up until the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, who I thought was particularly critical and particularly negative. . . . I mean, there was a little bit of that from some of the other members. I thought we were going to have something unique. I was actually going to get up here and call for a love-in. I thought: this is an appropriate bill for us to have a love-in.

Interjections.

G. Bowbrick: Austin Powers.

An Hon. Member: Maybe you're doing the mind thing.

G. Bowbrick: I wasn't talking about mind-sex; I just said a love-in. You know, it could be platonic love, and I think that's the way we should keep it. That's the way we should keep it between the two sides of the House.

But the point is an important one, and that is that this is a vital industry for this province. Members on both sides come from communities where tourism is vitally important. So I was glad to hear a few concerns raised by most of the members opposite, who spout that they are in favour of this act. I sometimes wish that they could be a little more forceful in 

[ Page 3148 ]

their support for the bill. It wouldn't hurt. I don't think there would be a revolt from their constituents. Their constituents might even say: "Well done, well done; you were positive about something." You know, rather than getting up and being critical for ten minutes and then saying in the final sentence, "But I support this bill," we might hear something a little more positive, especially as we get into committee stage. And I don't know, there may be a few other opposition members who speak during second reading.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the minister and the Premier have worked really, really closely with the tourism industry and the stakeholders in that industry to come up with this bill and with this agency. By all accounts, people in that industry are quite happy with this. And I think that's something, once again, which has been lost, unfortunately, in the debate thus far. So I thought it was important to highlight that point here.

One of the things that was also raised was. . . . I think the words of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain were that policies of this government were "devastating this industry." The minister already pointed out that since 1991, tourism revenues in British Columbia have gone from $4 billion a year to $7 billion a year, and I understand that to be a conservative estimate. Just in today's newspaper -- I think it might have been in the business section -- there was a report. And I think the hon. members opposite should note this. This is the kind of third-party endorsement -- which is more objective, I think, than members on either side of this House can sometimes be -- which speaks to the health of our industry.

That story in today's paper pointed out that Lufthansa, which now has daily flights to Vancouver, has all of their flights booked. They cannot take any more people from Germany -- from Frankfurt, I believe it is -- to Vancouver this year. Apparently Air Canada is looking to step in to fulfil that market demand. So there's an absolutely enormous demand for tourism -- for people to come to British Columbia and experience what we have to offer, and I think. . . .

I guess, in the spirit of questionable relevance, since the hon. members opposite have raised all of these other things, as I say -- FRBC and mining and the corporation capital tax. . . .

Interjections.

G. Bowbrick: I've lost my train of thought.

Interjections.

G. Bowbrick: Your heckling has succeeded. Congratulations.

I think it's vitally important to point out. . . . And I don't understand why this happens. I mean, the minister gets up and raises some positive points about tourism in British Columbia, and then we hear things about this government devastating this industry.

Oh, I've remembered the point. If the hon. members opposite want to raise all these other points of questionable relevance, then I'll do the same, albeit very briefly -- for 30 seconds or so. I think the fact that, for example, the environmental policies of this government are recognized throughout this province, throughout the country and indeed throughout the world as having taken a great leap forward since 1991, and the fact that we've made those kinds of leaps forward in protecting our environment. . . . I mean, obviously that's our number one draw for tourism: people recognize our pristine environment. This is why people fly; this is why Lufthansa can't get enough flights every day right now to get all of those German tourists to British Columbia to see our environment. But on that point of questionable relevance, I'll proceed from there.

You know, the minister pointed out the importance of tourism to young people in British Columbia. She pointed out that there are of course thousands upon thousands of entry-level positions created. But it goes well beyond that. We know that the fastest-growing sector of our economy is the service sector, and tourism is of course a major part of the service sector in our economy. And we know that these aren't simply McJobs, as some people might say. They're also jobs in management, jobs that require education and skills, jobs which can provide good careers for people -- and young people in particular.

In my own community in New Westminster, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union -- which is, by the standards of many organizations in our society, a rather philanthropic organization -- spends a great deal of their money on training young people in our community for jobs in the tourism industry. They train them as cooks and servers, and they end up getting good union jobs in downtown hotels, which. . . .

[5:45]

Now a final point, I think, and that is on this issue of funding. There have been concerns raised by some of the hon. members opposite about stability and certainty. It's important to point out that under section 13 of this act it says that net revenue under section 3.1 of the Hotel Room Tax Act will be going to this agency. The minister has pointed out that 20.64 percent of the existing hotel room tax is what that amounts to.

That's a dedicated revenue source. That's something the industry has been crying out for for a long time. I think it's worth pointing out to the members opposite, who are fairly critical of this government even on a bill as good as this one, that this is something which has never existed in this province. Under 20 years of Socred governments, it didn't exist. I hasten to add that there might even be a few members opposite who voted Social Credit at one time.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, thank you. There are several who are owning up to it. Thank you very much; I appreciate that. So you supported a government which didn't do as good a job as this government when it comes to ensuring that there's a dedicated revenue source and ensuring that there's some stability and certainty in this industry.

In summary, this is a good, important step forward. This is a step that the industry has been crying for for some time. It properly addresses the need for an agency dedicated to tour-

[ Page 3149 ]

ism in British Columbia. Of course I'll be supporting this bill. I look forward to the myriad of positive comments that I know, coming on the heels of my remarks, will be coming forward from the members opposite.

T. Nebbeling: I will be kind. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I cannot miss the opportunity to say a few words as well on Bill 9, especially considering that my background in Canada has been tourism.

When I hear many of the glorifying statements by members opposite as far as the role of this government bringing the tourism industry to where it is today, I think they're taking a lot of credit for deeds done by others, in particular the industry itself. Had it been for the guidance of this government in the last six years as far as tourism is concerned, tourism. . . . If indeed the whole tourism industry had to rely on what this government has done in the last six years, I don't think we would be looking at a very prosperous industry.

In a time when industry was indeed able to start creating complete new markets, it was this government that shut down the agency in Tokyo, thereby in a sense killing the Japanese market that is becoming more and more prominent in the industry figures here in British Columbia. If it was not for this government and their closure of the L.A. agency, which created a tremendous market for British Columbia. . . . Had it not been for the industry picking up the slack, indeed we would not be looking at the very prosperous numbers we are seeing right now. I think the minister is aware of all these closures. It's the same for London. If London as an agency had been able to continue to work on the same basis as Tourism B.C. did in the past in London, we would see a lot more industry growth coming from that particular market as well.

It is really funny to hear the member for New Westminster when he talks about more flights from Germany coming with Lufthansa. What he should do is look into how many of these flights are actually flights that used to be Canadian Airlines', which used to fly from Frankfurt and now actually loads its passengers onto Lufthansa flights. That's the reason Lufthansa can put out more flights to Vancouver. As the member for New Westminster, he should also, then, have looked into the fact that Amsterdam has shut down for Canadian Airlines. There are no more flights coming from Amsterdam for Canadian. So more people travel to Frankfurt or Munich and take the flights to Vancouver via Lufthansa. Unfortunately, they do not take the flight with Canadian.

But I wasn't going to talk, really, about all these things that. . . . The member was trying to show how glorified this industry is and how much this government has been responsible for the growth of the industry, and I've just given three or four examples where the action of this government has been very damaging.

We are looking today at a special operating agency for one reason. It's not this government's initiative, not this government's generosity towards the tourism industry -- because up to very recently many members opposite, including the minister, have been making very negative statements about the tourism industry as far as opportunity, jobs and wages are concerned. So I don't think this government in any way, shape or form can take credit for all that tourism is today -- and that tourism could have been today had, indeed, this government seen earlier the opportunities that would have been created.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: The member for Skeena keeps going: "What about Terrace?" Well, if he had focused a little bit on his area, there would not be so much need for jobs in tourism in his area, because the traditional industry would continue to provide these jobs, which is not happening today. So maybe the member from Terrace should listen and try to figure out that indeed there are opportunities that could be derived from a properly managed tourism industry.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, tourism certainly has tremendous opportunities, but this government has not tapped into them. It is the lack of this government's support for tourism that has led the dialogue from the industry with this government, to see if there somewhere is a way. . . . If indeed the industry had been given an opportunity earlier in the terms of this government to become a true partner by setting the tone of what industry can be for this province and where we have to go, then I think we would have seen even better numbers as far as jobs are concerned today in the tourism industry. We would see even better revenue coming from the industry as it is today.

We have heard from a number of members here the declaration that this is a unique bill. It is definitely a step, as one of the members said, as well. It is a step in the right direction, but it is far from perfect. The one thing it will not do -- although you would, if you read it briefly, think that it will do it -- is give the industry authority over the marketing of the tourism product of British Columbia and give them authority over making decisions where the proper money -- the funding is an issue we will come back to -- will be spent.

This bill is already dictating -- nothing else but dictating -- who the members on the board will be. This bill gives government members the authority to say who will participate on the board. Sure, the industry will be asked to put forward names, but it will ultimately be the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor, I believe, who will decide who these members are.

An Hon. Member: That's called democracy.

T. Nebbeling: No, that is not democracy. If you are willing, Madam Minister, to hand over authority and responsibility to an industry because they have more wisdom and more expertise than this government has when it comes to tourism, then in a democratic system it is okay to say to a group like that: "You get the best manpower, the best brainpower there is available today in this province, to indeed make sure that that board has the very best ability. . . ."

An Hon. Member: Through the Chair.

T. Nebbeling: Through the Chair. Thank you for the direction. I'm a rookie; I'm learning here, you know.

If this minister indeed had faith in an agency or commission to provide the very best knowledge to make this industry a stronger and better one and to tap into all opportunities, then the minister would have had the strength to overcome her own biases towards this industry and let the industry dictate who the board would consist of. That's not happening here. And for that reason alone, I have my suspicion about the effectiveness of this as a way. . . .

When it comes to funding, it is ludicrous to think that $18 million will be more effectively usable than the $23 million or $24 million that was to be made available to the agency in the last year. It is ludicrous to think that this board can truly effectively start promoting the product called British Columbia with that kind of money. It will not work.

[ Page 3150 ]

I have a lot more to say. You keep giving me the eye, Mr. Speaker, as if you want me to stop. I don't mind moving adjournment if we can continue tomorrow. So I move adjournment, and we'll speak more tomorrow.

T. Nebbeling moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)

P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, let me assure you that I don't have long pieces of information with me to read from.

Just to follow up on a couple of questions that I posed yesterday regarding employment standards, I've got a couple of comments and about three or four questions. Some analysis of the effect of section 79 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act on other related provisions, which might come into effect, hopefully, on January 1, 1998. . . . Section 79 replaces section 26(1). The effect is that the minimum vesting period is two years of continuous plan membership applicable to all service instead of five years of continuous employment applicable to post-1992 service.

Two, section 34(2) doubles up on pre-1993 death benefits, because section 26(1) now applies to both pre-1993 and post-1992 service.

Section 26(2) allows the superintendent to approve the application of an alternative definition for the term "years of continuous employment" for multi-employer plans for purposes of section 26. This section now appears meaningless, as the term "years of continuous employment" is no longer found in section 26(1).

Four, in section 1(1) the phrase "subject to section 26(2)" contained in the definition of "years of continuous employment" now also appears meaningless. And that refers to number three that I mentioned. A definition of the term "years of continuous plan membership" does not exist within the act, which is similar to the definition of "years of continuous employment."

The questions I have. . . . Will the act be amended to correct the inconsistency between section 79 and section 34(2)? If not, a deceased member's spouse will receive, in respect of the member's service prior to 1993, his required contributions plus 60 percent of the commuted value of his pension. So that's the first question.

The Chair: Minister, before I recognize you, I just want to again remind all members that only the administrative action of the minister's ministry is open for debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you for that, hon. Chair. I'll take the question in the context of your advisement.

My answer is an answer I gave yesterday, hon. member, and that is that in the course of fulfilling my duties, I do keep a vigilant eye, doing due diligence on various issues that arise with a view to how systems can be improved. Therefore any questions about whether we are going to bring in legislation or amendments is about future policy. It's not the kind of question that I should be expected to deal with in this context.

J. Dalton: I was just consulting with a colleague here on various other releases. I asked some questions this morning about a release from yesterday, and we are just finding others that we might get to later as we travel through our files, depending on the line of questioning and how things proceed.

To start with this afternoon, we want to discuss the issue of apprenticeship. Of course, this may take us down certain paths. We know that some of these issues are also related to the Education ministry and to Skills and Training in particular. I presume that there may be some areas where Employment and Investment is involved. But, of course, there is a significant amount of money identified in the '97-98 estimates that the Labour ministry will be spending on apprenticeship initiatives.

Perhaps the first thing before I get into some of the detail that came from the briefing and the estimates themselves, and then I think perhaps some of my colleagues as well will be willing to participate. . . . Is the minister aware of a best-practices case study that has just been released, entitled "The Pacific Rim Institute and Its Approach to Labour Force Development"?

The reason why I'm asking is that we know that the Labour Force Development Board was unfortunately stricken from his '97-98 budget. I know from having read this document that the Labour Force Development Board -- the ex-board -- initiated this study of tourism. I guess what I would really like to know is: what happens to some of these initiatives? Now this one on tourism can be taken forward. But the "Training for What?" document, for example, which came out of the Labour Force Development Board. . . . I thought that it was quite a good study and that it was going to lead to a second one, "Training for Whom?" Of course, now that they've pulled the plug on the board, we see initiatives coming forward in other industries. I think it may be important for us to know what is happening to some of these documents and studies that I think were quite valuable. Are we just going to shove them on the shelf, or are we going to be able to dust them off from time to time?

[2:45]

[ Page 3151 ]

But yes, we are interested in this kind of study. However, I would point out for the member's information that we have entered into a pilot project with the tourism industry which is very significant and perhaps more comprehensive -- if I understand the scope of the one the member referred to. It's a pilot project on tourism and the hospitality industry in the context of apprenticeship. The project is taking place in Nanaimo and Whistler, and there are 100 apprentices. This is very significant, because this is a new development in apprenticeship in the tourism industry.

J. Dalton: It's helpful to know that these initiatives are out there and that there's obviously some cooperation between ministries. . .

Interjection.

J. Dalton: . . .and in the industry -- yes, fair enough. I think in this committee we're all curious going through these estimates to know where the fit is between the Labour portfolio and these other initiatives -- some of which, of course, are not strictly speaking the function of the Labour ministry. It's nice to think that, hopefully at least, there is a fair measure not only of cooperation between ministries in all these initiatives but that we're going to see something positive come out of them. Maybe that begs the question, hon. Chair.

We are presumably spending a fair amount of money on some of these studies, and I would like to just revisit the earlier question I posed on the now ex-Labour Force Development Board's "Training for What?" document. I didn't bring it with me; I've got a couple of copies in my office. There were previous studies as well, not when this minister had the portfolio, but certainly by previous ministries -- I guess it was probably Skills, Training and Labour then. There was a Human Resources Development document, if I recall, from about 1992, and other things of that nature.

These things have all cost public money to initiate, study and produce. Even though the Labour Force Development Board has gone, is the Labour ministry taking some of these initiatives forward? I think that's probably where the fit comes in to this one that we know of -- and that the minister has responded on -- in the tourism sector, which, of course, is very important to our economy, given the changing nature of things. We are presumably moving from primary resources into these service industries and other revenue producers. Where does the ministry come from as far as the ongoing nature of the documentation I've referred to? Maybe we could also learn -- perhaps I asked this earlier, but I'll ask it again -- what the cost was to produce a document such as "Training for What?" What price tag would we assign to such a study?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we will get that figure for the opposition critic. I just wanted to reference the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, which is the tourism organization we have been working with on some of these projects. They will be evaluating the future involvement in tourism apprenticeship of their industry. Their executive director, Malcolm Ashford, is on the minister's committee that recommended ITAC, which I'm sure we will be canvassing shortly.

J. Dalton: Thank you. That's helpful to know. I'm just looking at Mr. Ashford's covering letter when he sent this out, and now the minister has informed us that he's involved with the ITAC initiative which we will be asking about as well as we proceed through this topic. I'm happy to hear we will be able to get the information assigning a price tag to such studies as "Training for What?" Again, I'm just hoping that we don't take these things and sort of park them off in the corner somewhere, and five years from now somebody's going through old shelves and says, "Oh, there's something that cost $5 million," for the sake of a figure. Perhaps we should dust it off and take a look at it. We don't want things to get dusty -- even dusty things have a price tag attached to them.

Let's come more specifically to the minister's estimates as far as the treatment of apprenticeship. . . . We've already heard from the minister on where things are developing. As I raised the issue of the tourism document, we know that there are some initiatives within that portfolio and therefore presumably a fair measure of cooperation between the Labour ministry and Small Business, Tourism and Culture. So it's important that we maintain some vigilance of an ongoing nature on these sorts of things.

One thing to start with about apprenticeship. . . . I'll probably ask more estimates-type questions initially, and then I think we would like to get into some understanding of where apprenticeship is going in this province. I think it is so vital. I don't just say that because I have an 18-year-old graduating from high school this year and, hopefully, he's going to be a candidate for this very initiative in some form. But it is so important for everyone, particularly as we get into new skills and people change jobs, and want to make sure that the government is not just K-to-12 or post-secondary -- or, as some say, "cradle-to-grave education," which we're all impacted by.

We learn, for example, having gone through the briefing documents and the estimates themselves, that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the central management services of the Labour portfolio. We've covered this before, so we don't need to go over that old ground. This is stated on the first page of the budget briefing documents that we received recently. Of course, it's restated when we get to staffing -- FTEs associated with the provision of central management services, etc., are provided by the Ministry of Education.

Then we learn later in the document -- I need some understanding here -- under "Management Services Division. . . ." I can't refer the committee to a page number, because unfortunately the pages were not numbered. But the ministry officials will be able, I'm sure, quite readily to see where I am in the documentation. Under the briefing document's "Management Services Division," we are told that the management services division of the Ministry of Education provides all central administrative support for the Ministry of Labour."

Then there's a $22.7 million price tag that comes out of the estimates. Can the minister help me as to why this $22.7 million is identified, if in fact the Ministry of Education is responsible for the central services?

Hon. J. Cashore: Our specific service is really a fraction of that amount. This was included in this document in order to provide a complete picture, since it is a joint project between the two ministries.

I think there was another point I was going to make, but it's just escaped me. I will probably come back to it.

With regard to the "Training for What?" document that we were discussing earlier, in that there was a recommendation that there be recommended industry-led skills and training, the Industrial Training and Apprenticeship Commission that we're going to be discussing is really an outcome of that recommendation. In other words, I think that means that it certainly was taken seriously. It will not be gathering dust.

[ Page 3152 ]

It will be a living, breathing, functioning organism, which I think is very widely believed -- in a completely non-partisan way -- to be good news, given the fact that the circle of input was complete from all parts of the circle, whether it was various elements of employers, employees or industry. There was the kind of input where I think those who participated very much felt that their opinions were validated and that at last there is going to be a commission that addresses this apprenticeship issue in a way that honours the excellent history in British Columbia in apprenticeship. It also honours the fact that we have to be prepared for the changes of the coming century.

J. Dalton: That response is certainly helpful to sort of set the stage here as we proceed through this line of questioning. Now, I understood the minister to say, as far as this $22.7 million that I've identified, that his ministry only has a fraction of it.

Maybe two questions -- I'll ask them both while I'm on my feet -- well, maybe three questions. Firstly, what is that fraction?

Secondly, when we get to the Ministry of Education's estimates, I presume we may then want to revisit this as to what their fraction is. Hopefully, the two add up to 100 or some part thereof.

Thirdly, given that this minister has two portfolios and the other one is not Education -- as opposed to his predecessor, who was both the Minister of Education and of Labour. . . . I'm just trying to think from his operation-of-the-office point of view, which is the vote we're actually dealing with, eh? We're back on the topic, hon. Chair. That's the vote we're now dealing with. How does that fit into the scheme of things?

Hon. J. Cashore: Our ballpark is about a quarter of the total amount in the Ministry of Labour, but we will get that precise figure. I think the question with regard to the minister's office. . . . That is a totally separate vote, and I do not believe that it's actually related to the issue of how the various responsibilities and workload around ITAC are allocated. Those would be functions of the two ministries rather than the minister's offices.

J. Dalton: I think what I was searching for. . . . I obviously asked it awkwardly or didn't get the message across. I was wondering. . . . Given that we are currently on the vote for the minister's office, we're not restricted to that. I agree, we are leading into ITAC and other apprenticeship initiatives. But with a minister who has two portfolios, his actual office operation. . . .

We know that most -- I guess three-quarters, as we're dealing with fractions here -- of the central management services are provided by the Ministry of Education. When the minister's office, the people at the front desk and all of that. . . . Does that come strictly out of this vote that we're dealing with? Then where does the other hat that he wears, the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs, fit into the operation of the minister's office?

Hon. J. Cashore: Management services, of course, as I pointed out, is completely different from the minister's office. There are two separate votes because there are two separate ministries. They are not combined ministries. We combine office space, but there are two separate votes of ministers' office budgets.

[3:00]

I'm just trying to visualize. When one person has two separate responsibilities -- both cabinet responsibilities -- he has to run an office. He doesn't have two offices. One doesn't say Aboriginal Affairs, and the other doesn't say Labour. He has one office, and I guess it says both. Which budget pays for the receptionist and the other people that we would find in that one office?

Hon. J. Cashore: The breakdown is primarily around those who are employees in that office for Aboriginal Affairs and those who are employees of the Minister of Labour. That's generally how the difference should be understood.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. As I say, that was certainly not an issue that I had even intended. . . . It was more of a curiosity factor, and I think I'm satisfied with that.

One of the things on the "Management Services Division" descriptive page deals with major ongoing program activities. Now that we've learned that approximately one-quarter of this budget item of $22.7 million. . . . It's actually closer to $22.8 million. But what's a million? -- as C.D. Howe once said.

One of the descriptive items here is "ongoing work on the system supporting the apprenticeship initiative." Does that aspect of management services gobble up a fair amount of this assigned budget? I don't need precise figures, and I don't necessarily even want to know those later unless the ministry cares to provide them. But it is a fairly important initiative and, of course, that's the line of questioning that we're developing this afternoon on the apprenticeship initiative.

So where does this ongoing work on the system in support of that. . . ? What kind of price tag might we assign to that? What ongoing work would there be? Could the minister give us a description of the type of work that supports the initiative?

Hon. J. Cashore: This ongoing work on the system supporting the apprenticeship initiative refers to the apprenticeship system and how it is handled through computerization, which is referred to as the AIMS system. The cost for operating that over a year is $300,000, and of that $300,000, $60,000 goes into upgrading that system. That is a system that slots apprenticeships into all of the various categories of occupation.

The Chair: The committee will just recess to facilitate the division in Section B, and we'll return immediately after that.

The committee recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I wonder if we might revisit the last issue that I raised. It seems almost a lifetime since we had a response, given what happened down in the big House. I've taken note of the AIMS system, but if the minister cares to, maybe he 

[ Page 3153 ]

could amplify the ongoing work that is identified in this management services part of the budget. I think it would be helpful to us on this side.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, of the cost in that $300,000 annual budget for AIMS, $60,000 goes into upgrading the system to enable it to function with regard to the new circumstances. AIMS slots all apprentices into the technical training at colleges, and it monitors the progress of apprentices over a four-year apprenticeship. So I think that pretty well covers it.

I would like to respond to a question that was asked this morning with regard to the inquiry line expenses, and that is that the total cost of the inquiry line is $594,000.

J. Dalton: Thank you. Before the committee reports out, it's always helpful that we get some answers so that maybe they don't slip through the cracks later on. I have one other point on this particular issue that I've raised. And then we'll probably flip back and start working our way through the budget and see where apprenticeship initiatives are coming from. We have with us the final report on governance that we'll have some questions about.

We've identified a $300,000 budget. One thing that certainly attracted my attention was that we are tracking every apprenticeship student in the college system. By that, I presume the minister means BCIT and the other post-secondary institutions that are involved in apprenticeships. It may be that my colleague sitting next to me is going to be far more helpful than I on some of this; he'll probably set me straight if I get off the rails. With these new initiatives taking place and the ever-growing need for post-secondary initiatives of this nature -- and also high school initiatives, because we know that apprenticeships are taking place in grades 11 and 12. . . . I think they need more work, obviously, like anything does. But that's a Ministry of Education issue, although I think we would also like to know where the fit between the two ministries is.

Let's just try this on for size. As a student at the college level, including BCIT, enters an apprenticeship, what sort of tracking does the ministry provide? Is it to ensure that that student is getting the right kind of apprenticeship, or is that just dealt with at the college site? Or is that dealt with through the employer who takes on the apprentice? How do the sort of mechanics of it work?

Hon. J. Cashore: Our counsellors bring the employer and the apprentice trainee together, and they work out a contract. Within that contract they work out a system for monitoring the progress of that, and a log book is kept in order to track that through the actual process.

J. Dalton: I'm sure we'll be gaining more information on this general theme as we proceed, so I don't think we need to spend more time on that as such. As I say, we will revisit it in another context.

If we may, let's return to vote 46, which we're now dealing with, which is the ministry operations. But, of course, we're obviously entitled to deal with other things. At the same time, I'd also like to ask, even though this is the Ministry of Education budget that I'm looking at. . . . When we look in the Ministry of Education post-secondary programs, $42.3 million is assigned for industry training and apprenticeships. Then, when we look at the Labour ministry's budget, $27 million is assigned?.

[3:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: These amounts have been administered separately -- in a sense, two different solitudes -- under the earlier system. Now those amounts come together under ITAC, but generally they're allocated to address the delineation between the mandates of those two ministries. What we have there is a new ITAC system which will administer those funds. I think there will be real economies of scale in doing that, since the very existence of ITAC will ensure that there's no problem insofar as there are actually two ministries involved.

I think we get the best of all worlds here. We get the benefit of having both ministries responsible for this program, and we have the benefit of the entity that is being created to administer those funds.

J. Dalton: I suppose we may be heading to where one day we'll have sort of two ministries folding back together in a more formal sense. Maybe we'll end up with a Ministry of Education, Skills, Training and Labour, which, if we look back not too far ago, we did have.

I'm just thinking that in another context, given the linkage between the Ministry of Education apprenticeship and the post-secondary initiatives with the Ministry of Labour. . . . As to student. . . . I know this is not directly within the Ministry of Labour, but now that we have grade 11 and grade 12 initiatives in apprenticeship -- say, take a grade 11 or 12 student under apprenticeship -- is there some linkage with that student?

If that student chooses to carry on apprenticeship into post-secondary -- for want of a better term, because this person's no longer in grade 12 -- are there linkages between the two ministries to keep tracking that student? Does that student have a priority on the apprenticeship? Apprenticeships, of course, are not necessarily easy to come by. I'm hoping that my son will be able to find apprenticeship fairly easily, but I don't have any great confidence at the moment that that will be so. We'll have to see. I am curious about these linkages with the grades 11 and 12 initiatives, heading into post-secondary.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. The fact is that it's not a question of them entering apprenticeship. Those grade 11s and 12s that the hon. member refers to are already in apprenticeship. They are indentured to an employer. That is built right into the system -- that they are in apprenticeship at the time they enter -- and that continues following grade 12.

J. Dalton: Would this same hypothetical student then get a credit towards the total package of the apprenticeship? In other words, I think we now recognize -- and certainly I'm excited to hear this if it's so -- that a student in grade 11 or 12 isn't just spinning his or her wheels like many of them do, 

[ Page 3154 ]

particularly at this time of year when you see floods of them coming through the Legislature. School trips are still alive and well, hon. Chair, at least in some areas.

Is that in the linkage? Would a student who enters apprenticeship in grade 11 only have to spend four years -- in other words, two post-secondary, for want of a better reference?

Hon. J. Cashore: The two years, grades 11 and 12, would amount to a one-year credit out of the four years for an apprenticeship.

J. Dalton: Right. So then I would take that to mean that full apprenticeship would require another three years in a college or BCIT and that would. . . . I see Mr. Cotts nodding his head, so I'm happy with that. We can leave that as it is.

Maybe I get a bit too excited about some of this. Nothing wrong with being excited, but when I have a candidate at my home who's just going to get into this, and I know full well the importance. . . . Of course, we're not dismissing the other post-secondary initiatives at the university and Langara College. I used to be there for a while -- 16 years, I guess it was.

There are all sorts of initiatives that we have to not only make sure we identify the need for but also make sure that they are properly managed -- particularly in the case where there's $42 million in one budget and another $27 million in another and who knows what other money. In fact, that's my next question. There is, under vote 47 -- under the industry, training and apprenticeship programs of vote 47 -- $27 million in the budget. Then there's a further $16.75 million that has been transferred from the Ministry of Education for the public post-secondary apprenticeship technical training budget. Is that correct? I think I've lost it, wherever it is in the document, but I've got it written down, and I didn't write it down just by accident. It was obviously initiated by something that I spotted in the budget itself.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair, that $16.75 million is part of the larger figure that the hon. member just stated.

J. Dalton: That's certainly of assistance -- to see where that figure came from.

Then the next thing I've got on this page -- we won't necessarily get right into it now, and I'm sure my colleague's probably champing at the bit to participate as well. . . . The ITAC initiative itself, and the pending legislation. . . . Now, I know, hon. Chair, we're certainly not allowed to discuss pending legislation in this committee, but it is referred to in the documents that we received in the briefing. Maybe the minister would like to give the committee a hint, if he cares to, if in fact we're going to see this legislation soon. I think it's certainly nice that we have the final report on ITAC, but until somebody actually says, "Well, here it is in legislative form," our discussion here is, of course, more academic than real.

Hon. J. Cashore: This is a topic that. . . . As I said a little earlier, all parties in the House and all sectors of our economy can in a very meaningful way rejoice that this initiative has come together and that it has the quality of input that it has had from those people who are out there -- workers, employers, industry and educators -- who understand the situation.

This is a very grass-roots piece of work that has gone into this initiative, and while I appreciate the hon. member acknowledging that we can't really discuss legislation that may be coming forward, I have no hesitation in saying that we have stated that we intend to move forward with this initiative. Given what has been stated publicly, it goes without saying that that means we are going to be engaging in that later on, in another context, in this House.

J. Dalton: We are certainly eagerly waiting for that day on this side. And even though I'm also in agreement on a fall sitting -- an indirect topic -- I hope that we won't see this thing postponed until the fall, if indeed we have a fall sitting. I would like to think that this initiative will come forward soon, so that before the break -- if we take a break at the end of this month, as some people are rumouring, or the end of the next month, or whenever -- we'll have this in place on the ground, up and running, and will get away from the academic discussion and into the real discussion and the real implementation of that.

I think we're probably getting pretty close to the point where I and my colleagues would like to ask some questions on ITAC itself -- at least on the final report on governance. But I do have a couple of other budget-type questions that I've taken note of on the same general theme of apprenticeship and the expenditures of fairly significant dollars. For example, as we look in the program overviews that the ministry officials kindly provided us with in the briefing, there's an item under labour services branch for $204,000. Can the minister advise the committee as to the expenditure of that money? What is that actual money designed to serve?

Hon. J. Cashore: Primarily it supports the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, and it deals with some other tasks that relate to the effective management of that category.

I wanted to correct something that was said earlier, and that is that the percentage of the Ministry of Education's management services budget, which is assigned to the Ministry of Labour, is actually 7 percent of that management services budget, not the 15 percent that I had earlier given as a guesstimate. Also, hon. Chair, I want to mention with regard. . . . Getting back to the point that the hon. member was making -- partly given his knowledge of apprenticeship based on a member of his family -- that in grades 11 and 12, where I said earlier that would provide one year's credit towards a four-year apprenticeship, in this current year there are approximately 300 graduates in that program. I think that's useful information. There are also 120 scholarships for graduating apprentices, based on the academic record and the employer assessment. Those scholarships are in the amount of $1,000 each. I just wanted to add that.

J. Dalton: I can say that we're certainly gaining more and more very useful information as we proceed. A question comes to mind: does the Ministry of Labour broker -- for want of a better term -- these credits when they start piling up as students head through the apprenticeship in grades 11 and 12 and then into post-secondary? Does the Open Learning Agency have any role to play in this? I know that's not his jurisdiction, but I think we should know whether it has a part to play. The Open Learning Agency is a very good broker in allowing people who don't have sort of traditional credit to get degrees, or at least credit toward degrees. What role does the Ministry of Labour play in this overall picture?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those credits are tracked through AIMS, which we were referring to earlier. Also, when I said that there was $1,000 per scholarship, that was for tools and training. That's what I was having a little trouble with there.

[ Page 3155 ]

J. Dalton: It's nice to know that there is a system out there that is in fact tracking all this, because it's too easy to slip through the cracks. As a former instructor at Langara, and particularly in the two years that I was department chair of business administration, I know that very often the most common visits I had in my office were students coming in and saying, "I've taken this at another foreign university," or "I've worked for 15 years in the security business," or whatever it was, and: "Can't you give me some credit?"

I think people were rightly crying out for some recognition of their life experience and what they had done in other jurisdictions, etc. That's the sort of thing we all have to keep working toward, and I would suggest that the Ministry of Labour has a very important function to perform in that regard. A lot of people might think: well, why should the Ministry of Labour be doing this? Is that not an Education function? But, of course, it isn't. I think it's a cross-function, and the ITAC document is leading to that, as well.

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: It's for the administration of the board. There are three FTEs and they, in a sense -- it's my term -- are a secretariat to the board. Then there are some other moneys that come out of that to handle other kinds of administration costs, such as space.

J. Dalton: I guess I'm curious, then: why not just lump the $204,000 that supports the board in with the $227,000 that the board has actually identified later in the documents as its budget? I guess I'm wondering if we are using the assigned funds in the most efficient fashion. I'm just fearful that you've got this pot of money over here, and some of it is going to flow through to this gang over here that has its own pot of money. Something may get sort of filtered away in that bridging situation. At least from my perception, would it not make more sense to have one identified line in the budget? Maybe it would even be less than the combined totals of those two because of the efficiency.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, and it is done. That's what is going to happen.

J. Dalton: Now, when the minister says that's what is going to happen, will that be for the 1997-98 budget year, for 1998-99, in the next millennium -- which isn't very far away -- or after the next election?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, it's 1997-98.

J. Dalton: I'm happy to hear that. As I say, it did catch my eye, and I was kind of curious. Will there be some money saved because of this being done for this fiscal year?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that will be the case. I think that we have to give the ITAC board, which will be new, an opportunity to get up and get going. It will have the role of administering that. Again, the consensus position of the various parties is that this will be a better and more economic way of managing.

J. Dalton: Needless to say, all of us over here are applauding this good news. The taxpayer out there is tremendously supportive of all these initiatives that are going to save some money and direct it where it should be directed, which is right on the ground to the apprenticeship initiatives and the ongoing learning of all the citizens of this province -- but in particular to the target, which is the older public school students, leading into the post-secondary.

It's worthwhile as well to recognize some of the other initiatives that have been taking place in this province for some time, such as the Career Technical Centre in Abbotsford. In cooperation with the post-secondary people out there, that district is to be applauded for really taking a lead in many of these things.

I've had occasion to visit the Nechako school district in Vanderhoof. I thought the former superintendent out there, Mike Fitzpatrick, was a real innovator in doing some of this with a rather limited budget -- using just the computer and other things. In fact, the Nechako school district has what they call the electronic bus. In effect, they've taken students from other school districts. I know there are North Vancouver and West Vancouver students who are actually in the Nechako school body count. They reside in North Vancouver and West Vancouver, but through the computer they're linked up to Nechako on the electronic bus.

Good old Nechako. Do you know what they do up there in that far-ranging, wide-thinking school district? They're taking the budget money from what should have been North Vancouver or West Vancouver students and applying that to their own budget. That's great, and I congratulate them for raiding in that way, because that's initiative. That's the sort of thing we're all searching for in this entire delivery of education in its broadest sense, but more specifically of the apprenticeship initiatives we're discussing.

Let's start to examine the final report on governance that has come from ITAC -- the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, so that Hansard will know what this thing stands for. We have the final report, which is dated February 18. It's a joint initiative of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour. I've got a couple of questions that come to my mind about this, and then I think perhaps my colleague the Skills and Training critic will be far more useful in asking some questions than I will be.

I have noted on the introduction of this paper: "This fit makes some sense." That's the fit of apprenticeship, dealing with the Ministry of Education and over to the Ministry of Labour. The fit makes some sense, but I'm still troubled by the fact that the previous minister had the two portfolios of Education and Labour, and this minister has the portfolios of Aboriginal Affairs and Labour. That's where I'm a bit troubled by the fit. I think something's going to slip through the cracks here unless we rejig the ministries. Or maybe it's time for the Premier to think about assigning -- no criticism of this Labour minister -- someone to actually take over this portfolio as these new initiatives come on. Perhaps what we're discussing is folding this into one ministry, which I think would be our preference on this side of the House, or in some other way making sure that these things don't get scrambled up as we start cooking the omelette, because we've assigned the wrong tasks to the wrong portfolios. If the minister would care to comment on that, I'd be interested to hear.

[ Page 3156 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The previous Minister of Labour, the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, did an outstanding thing in setting up the process that has brought together people from industry, labour, education, employers -- all of those people came together. As a result of the work that was actually set in motion by the previous Minister of Labour, they've come up with what I think is an absolutely outstanding plan that's going to bring us into the next century with regard to apprenticeship training. In so doing, it has built into it the resolution of the problem that the hon. member is identifying -- which is a non-problem.

It's a non-problem, because the decisions will be made by ITAC. The Education and Labour ministers will not be interfering in the day-to-day operation of ITAC, and therefore they will not be in a sense tripping over each other. This is a real win-win situation in which there is the benefit of both of these ministries being involved, because both have a historic reason to be involved. But the fact is that this new entity, which is in the process of being established, is going to be entirely the answer to any concerns that may have existed before over whatever configuration exists with regard to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education or whether it's combined in one office or not.

I just want to mention that the Open Learning Agency of the Knowledge Network, which was referred to earlier and which received some funding from the Ministry of Education, is going to be having a program at 11 tonight on channel 4. It's on apprenticeship, and the title of the program is "Learning a Living." This will be co-hosted. One of the co-hosts will be a counsellor that we have from Vancouver, and her name is Gail Wilson; the other co-host is the first female boilermaker in the province, and her name is Heather Watt. So I think that's a very significant program tonight.

J. Dalton: Thank you. That's very timely. I've taken note, and at 11 o'clock, instead of dreaming I will be watching.

An Hon. Member: Do you know how to work your VCR?

J. Dalton: Well, I don't have one here, but I'm going to phone home right after we're finished here today and say: "Make sure you program. . . ." My 15-year-old daughter is very good at taping things for me. She tapes rugby games and anything else I happen to spot on the local channels; she's great. Well, as somebody once said -- and they've studied this -- if you want your VCR programmed or whatever else, the best person to find is a 12-year-old. Now it may be a little older. . . . That was maybe a couple of years ago, but my 15-year-old is perfect for that. My other two aren't bad, but she has a real ongoing interest in it. She's the one that cruises the Internet and all that stuff. I don't know how to get into it yet.

I do have a question from one of my colleagues who can't be with us right now. It's not indirectly related. Just on the last response, the minister was telling us about the independence of ITAC -- and I sure hope so, although not so independent that it charges off in its own direction with a whole pot of money and misspends it. It reminds me, and this is the question of one of my colleagues: under vote 47, STOB 82, there's a figure there of $20.29 million -- and this is where there may be a relationship between what the minister just told us and the independents. Can the minister give us a breakdown of that STOB 82 in vote 47 as to where that is spent?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, some information is just in the process of coming through to me.

I want to say with regard to the taping of that program on the Knowledge Network that I will commit to the member to have a tape made and get it over to him, and that way he'll be able to get some rest in a timely way. I know I have a game of squash at 6:30 in the morning, and I'll just be wiped if I don't get to bed before that program comes on. I think I've ragged the puck long enough here; now maybe I'll have the answer.

J. Dalton: And perhaps we're not far from our new-found, traditional, long-sought-after afternoon tea break before we do that. Of course, we had a kind of interlude earlier of an unexpected nature.

Hon. Chair, this is completely off topic, but the minister didn't respond. He can kindly provide me with a tape, and happily my daughter can also program the thing to tape something a week from now. So the technology does allow for that. I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know how they get that damn clock from flashing out 12:00, 12:00, 12:00 -- you know that one. I cover it up with some masking tape and say: "Good, it's gone away." However, I'd be quite happy if. . . . But then that's the next question: from whose budget will that tape come?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair, we'll pay for that tape.

With regard to the question, though, I would suggest that we'll make use of that opportunity with what I'll refer to as a "coffee break." I'm a little worried about referring to it as a "tea break" in case I mispronounce that word. So we will get that after the coffee break, if we can have other questions now.

J. Dalton: I just have more on this. I know we're waiting for a breakdown, but it gives rise. . . . This is another concern of my colleague, as I noted, and I would agree with him. The independence of something like ITAC, I guess, might remind some of us of the independence of Forest Renewal B.C., and quite frankly, the independence of that agency has been compromised. So I don't necessarily have any great confidence that ITAC will be allowed to proceed on this great measure of independence.

[4:00]

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for his comments. I wasn't trying to infer, even though I drew a parallel to another agency that I think got off the rails. . . . Heaven forbid, we may never get back on the rails. I do agree. I think that this minister, in his enthusiasm. . . . Hopefully, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Employment and Investment are involved in this initiative as well. But we're going to have to come at this from other ministries, if we can get to them. That may be sometime later in the year if this rumoured break 

[ Page 3157 ]

takes place, but we'll see. The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission is also involved. I just want it clear, and that's why I've put it on the record. It wasn't a facetious comparison -- anything but.

The fact is that there are examples under the regime of this government that have not quite worked out the way that everyone, in their glowing terms, said they would. That's a reality; I don't think it's necessarily a question of debate. I have every confidence that we will all work together on this. I have a personal stake in this, as I indicated. My colleagues will be asking questions, as well, on this and other topics. We all share that spirit of cooperation, because this is far too important to play politics with. We also have to make sure that we don't waste the money that's assigned to these initiatives. These all have a price tag, and that's what estimates is about: the accountability of where this pricing is going.

We can't just sort of dismiss it offhand and say, "Well, they're on their own, it looks great, everyone is lovey-dovey and cooperative, and the world will be fine," because the world doesn't work that way. That's not reality. So we will certainly be happy to support the initiative when it comes forward. But we haven't seen the bill yet, and it may be that we will be disappointed to see some things in the bill. Who knows? But from what we see in the report itself, I think the overall initiatives look promising, to say the least.

I think that's probably all I want to comment on right now on this report. I'm going to suggest that it may be time for this long tradition of the break that we're just now bringing into vogue, but maybe the minister has a comment as well.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would propose that we go to about a quarter after the hour and then come back at the half hour.

I've now got the answer on the question of the $22.7 million. The breakdown is $1.2 million for curriculum development; $300,000 for equity initiatives; for secondary school apprenticeship, which involves scholarship and promotion, $400,000; for journeyperson upgrading, $1 million; for innovative pilot projects, $300,000; for technical training by private trainers, $2.6 million; technical training in colleges, $16.7 million; and that adds up to that total.

Also, I'm going to send over to the opposition critic a document that outlines the various industries in the Employment Standards Tribunal and lists the number of appeals by industry sector from November 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997. The second page is the Employment Standards Tribunal applications for exclusion. Would the hon. critic pass that on to the member for Cariboo North.

R. Masi: I've taken great interest in the high-tech presentation in the report, and I'd like to compliment the ministry and the ministry officials on a good step forward. It's certainly not my intention here today to poke holes in it or anything like that, although I do have some questions on the organizational structure, some on the rationale and a few points in it that I'd like to hear about.

First of all, I have to comment that for many years now I've had an indirect association with apprenticeships, and I was directly involved in the establishment of the preapprenticeship program in the district of Surrey with Kwantlen College and the welding program there. I wrote the paper on the establishment of it there, and I thoroughly believe in that approach. So I think we're all on the same page here, and I've been waiting for a while to see what this report would bring. Happily, it's a good report, so we'll go on from there.

First of all, I just wonder, in terms of the rationale and the organization of the report, is there somewhat of a comparison of the scope of the new organization -- I guess we're calling it ITAC -- and the former Provincial Apprenticeship Board?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question was with regard to the scope that will be covered under the new ITAC. It will include the previous functions of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board -- which is an advisory function -- the apprenticeship branch of the ministry, entry-level trades training, preapprenticeship training, field services. I would add to that, since we're into a new era where new occupations and industries are, in a sense, redefining apprenticeships with new jobs, new kinds of employment coming into that. . . . In that sense I think it enables that kind of expansion into new areas, because there is a desire here to see apprenticeships made available to a wider circle of opportunity.

R. Masi: I guess that in any redevelopment of a major organization model like this there are costs involved. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the cost of the whole reorganizational function so far.

Hon. J. Cashore: By folding systems in under one umbrella, it's totally cost-neutral, and as a result of bringing these things together, some economies may be achieved that will be manifested later.

To go back to the first question the hon. member asked about scope -- just to give you examples of the kinds of activities that are being brought under this umbrella -- over the last two years, for instance, there have been 22 film apprenticeships and 13 aviation maintenance apprenticeships. Those are examples of new activities that are coming into the system, and we expect there will be more.

Having said that, I'd like to suggest that we take a recess, and I think we should try to get going right away at 4:30.

The committee recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: For the record, I'd like now to make available the two letters that I referred to yesterday: the letter from myself to the Minister of Transportation and Highways with regard to the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the concerns that were raised by CLAC, and also the letter from Sherallyn Miller, superintendent of pensions, to Neil Roos of the CLAC, the latter dated April 30, 1997, and the former dated April 28, 1997.

R. Masi: I note in the report that both the Minister of Education, Skills and Training and the Minister of Labour have had a briefing on this report and indicated full support. I just wonder -- again, thinking in terms of two ministries -- what roles would each in fact play in terms of the organizational structure.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I have addressed that, but just to briefly repeat it, the two ministries together, in enabling the recommendations of the ministers' committee in creating ITAC, will be at arms' length from the day-to-day administration of ITAC. It will be administered by the ITAC board, and therefore that will be done as a whole. In other words, the two ministries will not be interfering in the administration of ITAC. That will be done by the board.

[ Page 3158 ]

R. Masi: I guess, though, in the final analysis. . . . You know, this duality bothers me a little bit in terms of the final reporting. In a situation where it may have to go beyond ITAC's jurisdiction or something like that, what would be the controlling ministry? I guess that's what I'm asking.

Hon. J. Cashore: It reports to both ministries.

R. Masi: There is in the report a series of recommendations that indicate how ITAC will operate with respect to both the legislation. . . . Has this series of recommendations in fact been approved by both ministries?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

I would like to refer to an earlier question that I said I would bring information back on. That was the cost of "Training for What?" That was a staff project of the Labour Force Development Board. The approximate cost was $400,000.

R. Masi: In terms of one of the recommendations in the report, it indicated there would be an approach that would ensure that the time lines for the spring legislative agenda are met. I believe the minister alluded to that in a way -- maybe the only way he can at this stage of our debate. But I have to comment that the school system -- including the university system, somewhat -- runs fall to spring. It's a question of planning and organization. I just wonder if you'd like to comment on that; that's all.

Hon. J. Cashore: That point is well taken. It has been anticipated in matters with regard to timing and introduction, etc.

R. Masi: Looking at mandates and responsibilities -- and I'm referring directly to the report here. I hope someone has the report in front of them. I'm down to section 3 here: "The ITAC will provide and promote a vision of industry-driven training and apprenticeship. . .that is attractive to workers, learners and industry. . . ." I just wonder if I could ask the minister for a comparison here between what we're already doing in apprenticeship training and what the future may hold.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I think I've answered that. I did refer to the scope, for instance, in the answer to an earlier question. I believe it was a question about scope which this hon. member asked. I identified the various entities that have been brought together under this single entity.

Then I indicated that in addition to those that had been brought under that, we could anticipate some expansion, in a sense, of new vocations in new industries, such as the 22 film apprenticeships and the 13 aviation maintenance apprenticeships that have recently come into that system. We believe that the ITAC process will be managed in such a way that it will enable considerably more jobs to come into that. So in that sense, I think it expands the scope, not so much of the various components that come into it but more in a sense of the increasing output.

R. Masi: I guess I'm on a certain theme here. Perhaps it's because of the reputation, deserved or undeserved, of the former structure, which had a certain level of rigidity in it. I guess I'm pursuing this just to see if we are on a new course or not. I have a feeling we are.

The report talks about strengthening and enhancing industry training and ensuring there are linkages in this area. Now, I assume that the first thought here would be of the client linkages between education and industry.

There's a third component here, which is very valuable and indispensable, actually, to the whole process of apprenticeship, and that's the labour unions. I would like a comment, if I could, on the position of labour unions generally in relation to the new approach to apprenticeships. I think this is critical if it is to be successful.

Hon. J. Cashore: Labour is supporting this very enthusiastically, so I do want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge the point that the hon. member made about flexibility. I think that point is well taken. Certainly the intent of this new ITAC is that flexibility is going to be, I think, a really important word in terms of how that is administered. Obviously we've got to move from rigidity into flexibility in order to be able to accommodate a variety of circumstances that are out there so that it genuinely works for people and serves people.

We anticipate the expansion of apprenticeship into new areas of economic growth: technology, services, information. We want to see it be more flexible, closer to home, with the delivery of technical training being more affordable to employers, especially small businesses, and more competency-based to shorten the length of apprenticeship. So we think, again, since industry workers have had input into and indeed have designed what it is that is coming into existence, that gives it the best opportunity to be able to fulfil those kinds of goals.

R. Masi: Actually, the minister anticipated my next question and provided an answer there in terms of goals and objectives.

I guess I have some concerns about the one comment in here on transferability and portability across training providers. This is, of course, a problem at the university level. Transferability, as everyone knows -- this isn't anything new. . . . I'm just wondering: are we talking here about the movement of workers physically or different training institutions? I'm just not clear on that statement.

Hon. J. Cashore: May I ask the hon. member just to repeat the last part of that question again?

R. Masi: It's a question of my lack of understanding here. To ensure transferability and portability across training providers, I'm not sure whether we're talking about moving people or whether we're talking about institutional change. It's just not clear to me; it's two words that are just sitting there.

Hon. J. Cashore: The portability is with the credits that the apprentice gains, so I believe that the direction that this is going in is what I expect the hon. member is seeking to see happen. It's so that people don't get into a kind of dead end; they're able to make use of those credits in a way that is beneficial to them as their future activity carries on.

I want to just mention with regard to another point that the commission members will be representative of the training partners: business, labour, education and training providers, and government. These representatives will be chosen based 

[ Page 3159 ]

on knowledge and ongoing interest with respect to trades andoccupational training and the skills of the B.C. labour market. That was in reference to the members of the commission who will be appointed.

R. Masi: In terms of the contractual arrangements here with public and private institutions -- the delivery system, in other words -- I'm just wondering: is that restrictive? Or are we just talking about colleges? Or is it the sort of free enterprise institutions that you see around -- the sort of pop-up schools?

I guess that what I should do here is establish what I'm talking about. What I'm worried about here is that we have sort of instant schools popping up because of an expanded apprenticeship thing, and how valid will they be and the whole range of credibility here. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: The training institutions will have to be accredited by ITAC, and I expect that ITAC will embody the concern that the hon. member is expressing in what I think is a very valid question.

Given that ITAC will consist of people who are in the forefront with regard to this whole sphere of interest, be they industry or employee representatives or government representatives, it will be part of their mandate to ensure that that credentialing ensures the appropriateness with regard to those institutions. There are also going to be joint boards and industry trainers, mostly in construction.

So I think there are provisions that the hon. member will see are built into the process and that cover those points.

[4:45]

The other thing is the. . . . I guess I have a certain problem here with the guarantees of, again, innovation and flexibility in terms of appointing or reappointing members to that board.

Hon. J. Cashore: The executive committee is the board. There will be a number of standing committees in different categories to advise the board.

R. Masi: In terms of appointments, what process would be undertaken directly to the standing committees?

Hon. J. Cashore: I did refer to that question a few moments ago, I guess, before it was asked. I will go through it again. ITAC will be jointly responsible to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Education, Skills and Training. We've covered that point. The members will be selected from those who are representative of the training partners. They'll come from business, labour, education and training providers, and government. They will be chosen based on their knowledge and their ongoing interest with respect to trades and occupational training and the skill needs of the B.C. labour market.

Also, with regard to what I anticipate could be a follow-up question on the government representatives, they will probably include representatives of the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training; the Ministry of Employment and Investment; and the Ministry of Women's Equality.

R. Masi: I see there's a point in here in terms of ITAC consulting with equity-seeking groups. I wonder if I could have a definition of that phrase.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, the way the minister's committee has laid out the foundational principles of ITAC, this comes from that committee. So it's not something that comes from us, but it comes from those who have designed ITAC.

Business and labour are expected to provide equity representation in appointing their appointees. Also, when one talks about equity, I think we would all agree that we recognize that these are issues of equity and employment opportunity that relate to women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities. I think that one of the successes of this system that expands to be more inclusive of more vocations and provide better opportunities, especially for young people. . . . One of the signs of success will be the way in which they find a way of enhancing employment opportunities for those various groups.

R. Masi: I have just never used the phrase before: equity seeking. My impression was that we were talking about students seeking equity in terms of their life accomplishments. But then maybe that's not a proper definition at all. One's mind, you know, wanders a bit when you see something like this. I thought it had to do with value to students. But thank you for your definition.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that's a valid point, and I think we recognize that value. But in this particular context it's relating to underrepresented categories of our society in productive employment.

R. Masi: In terms of the appointment of additional members to address specific issues. . . . Now, I understand that this is all supposition, but could we talk a bit about what specific issues we are referring to here? It tends to be a bit vague in the wording.

Hon. J. Cashore: The reference to specific issues anticipates that when you bring together the fertile minds of the various people on the board representing those various entities, they will identify specific issues that need to be addressed. Therefore I don't particularly want to get ahead of them in identifying what I think those issues are; I think that's part of the life of the board.

I just want to mention -- I think it's in the context of our discussion -- that one of the tasks of ITAC will be to link prior learning and provide credit towards further certification and standing in post-secondary institutions. Prior learning assessment will be done in partnership with the Open Learning Agency. I think that an example that keeps coming up. . . . Perhaps an analogy that comes up in the context of the discussions that have taken place by those who have designed ITAC is that they would like to see an electrician, for instance, be able to use her credits as an electrician towards the goal of becoming an electrical engineer.

R. Masi: It certainly is commendable in terms of life experiences and training. Just as an aside, I was concerned 

[ Page 3160 ]

before about the rigidity relative to the Apprenticeship Board, but there's rigidity all through the system. I think that with the work-world situation as it is, flexibility is the answer, and I'm happy to hear that. That's an excellent move.

To get directly back to the paper here on appeal procedures and mechanisms -- I don't need a lengthy answer here; again, this is my lack of experience in this field -- what types of appeals would come forward?

Hon. J. Cashore: Consider somebody in the system who is not awarded a trades qualification because, in the view of those who have that authority, there is a feeling that the requirements were not met. There would be provisions that would enable an appeal of those kinds of decisions.

R. Masi: Would it refer to previous credits in terms of being able to sit for examinations or anything to that effect?

Hon. J. Cashore: It could.

R. Masi: I don't want to belabour this. But would that be previous credits earned outside the country? That is probably a very sensitive area in terms of the ethnic makeup of our population, which has changed since 25 years ago.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, it could include that also.

R. Masi: Moving on to the powers and duties of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint members to ITAC and to appoint the chair, are we talking about permanent appointments? Are we talking about term appointments? I wonder if I could ask a question about that.

Hon. J. Cashore: There will be limits, but the hon. member will have to wait for the legislation to see what those limits are.

R. Masi: Supplementary to the term "appointments" and having to wait for legislation, I assume, then, that there have been no appointments to that committee.

Hon. J. Cashore: The legislation has to come first.

R. Masi: An interesting line in here in terms of appointment to the ITAC is that all members appointed to ITAC be of a "very senior level." I wonder if I could have a definition of "senior."

Hon. J. Cashore: This refers to the fact that we want people who will be considered very well experienced in their field: people who have, hopefully, wisdom that comes as a result of experience. I've heard the terms "captains of industry" and "captains of labour" being used.

I would say that in terms of "senior," it's interesting that I'm the oldest member of cabinet, and in some ways I think I should receive the respect that that should, in some circumstances, require. But then in actual fact, I believe that up until not too long ago the Premier himself was the youngest member of cabinet. So in that sense, I would look to him as my senior, even though he's much, much younger than I am.

R. Masi: I think we'll just have to leave the very senior level. I've never been sure what that means in my career: senior management, middle management. . . . Where do we all sit in this whole game?

Anyway, to get on with it, the minister referred to the framework model of the composition of ITAC. I note here that we have 16 positions on the committee devoted to business and labour and four to post-secondary education, two of those four representing senior system management and two representing employee groups. I'm interested in the rationale for the weighting. I know that the minister has twice now commented on the makeup of the committee, but I am interested in why it's weighted eight and then. . . .

[5:00]

R. Masi: Well, it seems to me that we have. . . . You put business and labour together -- I guess from my background I tend to do that, and maybe you'll have to straighten me out here -- but then you split the education system here into two groups of four and four. I just don't see a balance there between those. I'm not being critical here. I just want to know the rationale so I can explain it.

Hon. J. Cashore: Being apprenticeship, it is industry-driven; therefore the eight and the eight for business and labour. With regard to education. . . . In a sense, education is the clients, in that they have a role in the delivery of the services that enable the apprenticeship system and the entry level of trades training to function. Also, I believe the member said that it was four and four. It's actually four education and three government -- I may have not heard that correctly. It's eight labour, eight business, four education, three government and one chair.

R. Masi: Just to comment on that framework again, I hate to contradict the minister, but I think I see four. There's a column down the left side that goes eight, eight, four, four, and then one, one.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is right.

J. Dalton: He's always right.

Hon. J. Cashore: I was going to say that he was reading from an earlier draft, but let me try that again.

Eight labour, eight business, four education in the college system, three government and one private post-secondary rep, who in one way was lumped in with the government appointees. But obviously that's a separate category.

R. Masi: Thank you for that answer.

To get further along here. Over the page, in terms of standing executive committees and industry trade advisory committees, I assume that these are two separate boxes below the ITAC. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

R. Masi: So in terms of the line of communication, then, between the two groups of two committees, in any case it's the 

[ Page 3161 ]

duty of ITAC to consult with these committees. We've talked about consultation, and everyone does, but is this a direct line of consultation in terms of the committees affecting the programs and the development? Or is this a consultative model where the ITAC in fact provides the direction and the committees carry it out?

Hon. J. Cashore: They advise on particular trades and occupational clusters.

I just want to say, hon. Chair, that since I'm giving such comprehensive answers to all of these questions, this means that it won't take very long when we get into the discussion of the bill.

R. Masi: My colleague has pointed that out. I have to say that I appreciate the answers. Truly, I'm supportive of this committee and this structure. I'm not trying to poke holes into it; I'm just trying to get an understanding of how the process works.

The same question would apply to the next line here: "That it be the duty of the ITAC to hear from workers-learners on their issues and interests." I'd be interested in how they would do that. Just a brief comment.

Hon. J. Cashore: For example, it could be through the TACs, just one part of it, but one of the tasks for the board will be to determine how to gain that kind of input.

R. Masi: I'm glad to see that's in there as a conscious decision to keep those lines open. In terms of the standing or executive committee, could I just ask a question on the organizational structure? Why does it say standing or executive committee? I haven't quite clarified that in my mind yet.

Hon. J. Cashore: The executive committee is the board. The standing committees would be advisory committees to the board.

R. Masi: So there are, as I see here, seven functions in terms of, I assume, the standing committees. Do we assume that those are seven standing committees?

Hon. J. Cashore: In the final analysis, it will be determined by the board.

R. Masi: In terms of the last committee in that column, it just says "apprenticeship." It seems to me that the whole topic is apprenticeship, and I wonder why there's one committee established called "apprenticeship."

Hon. J. Cashore: That would be to carry out the appeal functions under the Apprenticeship Act. That also encompasses entry-level trades training.

R. Masi: In terms of the industry-trade advisory committees, it indicates -- the minister has commented on this, and quite fully -- identifying new trades and occupations. There seems to be movement toward expansion here, and I compliment the ministry on this. I wonder, in terms of the scope and in terms of technology and the whole changing industrial society, the change or the movement toward. . . . In secondary schooling, there's quite a change from the previous hands-on type of trades toward broader-based, problem-solving, technological-based training. I'm wondering how wide the thinking is here in terms of broadening out the new occupational structure.

Hon. J. Cashore: We expect this organization to be on the leading edge. Frankly, I think I speak for both the Minister of Education and myself in saying I believe that this is going to be something that is studied because of its success by jurisdictions throughout North America. I believe that this will enhance the value of the kind of technical training that needs to be made available, so that young people and those seeking retraining are equipped to do the jobs that are needed for the economy. So it's very wide.

R. Masi: This is an old sawhorse of mine, and I guess I have a concern. It may almost be sociological. The difficulty in the secondary school system is often not with -- you have to be careful what terms you use nowadays -- the kids who find that success comes easily. The difficulty here is often with a percentage of kids, and I'll call them kids -- students -- who are in the system and don't do well in terms of advanced academics. I have a feeling that as we advance in our technological world, we're going to have a group of youngsters there who aren't going to be capable of moving along. Maybe we're getting blue sky here, but has this been addressed at all in the deliberations?

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the hon. member's point. The average age of apprenticeship in B.C. is 28, and one of the things that we want to see happen is for that to come down. We don't want to see lost generations because of the kinds of circumstances that the hon. member was describing so well.

I also really do think it's important that all our training and education systems are systems that value all those who come through that process, so that their sense of worth is a very healthy sense of worth. I only have to cite the experience of apprenticeship in Europe, where people who are in apprenticeship are viewed in many instances as having achieved a much higher status than those who have perhaps gone on to university, and where there is pride in people having those kinds of skills -- that is, the skills that are needed to be able to operate our economy in the years to come. Where we have that kind of value represented throughout the system, right from the very earliest years, that will mean that we will have solved part of the problem of addressing the need for full employment.

[5:15]

An interesting area here, under recommendations, says that the committee will procure bursary and scholarship support. I find this one interesting because of the high level of competition out there today within the university world. The colleges and every other agency are now looking for money. Is there any strategy or distinctiveness in terms of the approach here, relative to bursaries and scholarships?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is an agreement with the federal government that we will work together to achieve a skills, loans and grants system that will be broadly based. I expect that insofar as the role of ITAC is involved in procuring scholarships and loans, the values we were talking about a moment ago must be manifested in the way that the values of those who would receive those loans and scholarships would be addressed. I think that has to be part and parcel of it.

R. Masi: Just going further with that in terms of bursaries and scholarships, we were talking about the partnerships -- the industrial partnerships and labour union partnerships. Is that the approach we're looking at?

[ Page 3162 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is exactly what we're looking at.

R. Masi: I was going on to talk about the dual reporting to the ministers, but I think that has been well covered by the ministry. I'm looking here at the interim structure. The first question I would have to ask on that is: are we at that stage at the present time? Are we in the interim structure period now?

Hon. J. Cashore: The interim structure should be in place by the end of next month -- the end of June.

R. Masi: I'm glad to hear that. That's solid progress, and we'll look forward to that.

In terms of the new ITAC comment that it cannot become bogged down in day-to-day PAB administration and lose its strategic policy focus, can I assume, then, that that would be handled by the two committees, in terms of the day-to-day focus?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, that's why we have the apprenticeship committee -- to handle that appeal process so that the whole progress we're making in all of this doesn't get bogged down. We have that instrument to enable that to happen.

R. Masi: Further to this structure, then, in terms of the interim structure, that membership may be reviewed upon formal establishment of ITAC but may not need to be changed. Of anything in this whole paper, I guess that would bother me the most -- the comment there that it may not need to be changed. This is no reflection on past practices or past people; I just have a little concern about that comment.

Hon. J. Cashore: Until the legislation is approved and fully in place, you have to have some aspect of the PAB in place in order to be able to carry on activities in the interim. But the intent is always -- always -- to have the very best people currently available appointed to that function. Therefore that is the most important consideration.

R. Masi: So I guess I would assume, then, that under the heading "Apprenticeship Committee," as it states here: ". . . membership on the apprenticeship committee be comprised of a core of existing PAB members." I suspect that would be the case; that's my understanding.

We want to finish up here. In terms of the interim chief executive officer -- that an interim CEO be named as quickly as possible -- I'd like to ask two questions. Has this been done? Do we have a name of an appointee?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to both of those questions is no.

R. Masi: A couple of questions, and they may have been answered. It was indicated that there are 300 graduates coming through the system, and I think I heard it was something like 120 scholarships in that area.

Hon. J. Cashore: In secondary schools.

R. Masi: Through the secondary school system, right. Thank you. Could I ask how many apprentices there are in British Columbia, as we sit?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are 14,475 -- and rising.

R. Masi: Thank you to the minister for that answer. That's a significant number. I won't ask where they're all situated, but could I ask a general question in terms of. . . ? Are they located largely in the traditional areas?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. I have a printout here that breaks down into areas and numbers of apprentices, where they're located and such. We will get a copy of this and make it available to the member, either during estimates or shortly after.

R. Masi: That concludes my series of questions on the new ITAC. Again, I want to thank the minister for those forthright answers and his officials for their forthright situations there. Again, I wish you well on this.

J. Dalton: As an interested observer, I certainly was almost fascinated by what we've accomplished in the last half hour or so. Can the minister tell me who was on this committee that prepared the ITAC report? If it's dozens of people, I don't need to know them all. I'm just interested in who the players were.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we can. We will bring the list into the estimates. I realize that we'll probably be spending most of our time tomorrow afternoon on WCB, but during that time I will enter that into the record.

J. Dalton: That would be helpful, just to know who was a party to it.

I guess I would ask one other question on the carryover, the transition between PAB and ITAC. Would the minister anticipate that some of the current members on the apprenticeship board might become members of this about-to-be newly appointed body?

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, that's the kind of answer a minister shouldn't really give. But if the hon. member has a copy of the signed report, which I believe he does, the list of members of the committee is on the last page.

J. Dalton: Actually, I don't have that.

Hon. J. Cashore: All right. Well, we'll certainly bring that in.

J. Dalton: That's a fair point. Ours ends at page 9, with the diagram of the ITAC and the apprenticeship committee. We don't have any signatories to the document; that's why I asked.

I've just got a couple of other things I wanted to deal with before we adjourn today. The minister is quite right. We will be devoting tomorrow afternoon primarily, if not exclusively, to WCB issues.

Recently -- April 25 -- there was a joint release for Canada and British Columbia on a labour market development agreement. This is a joint release between Human Resources Development Canada and the Ministry of Education. It seems to me that in a lot of the discussion we've had this afternoon on apprenticeship and other initiatives, perhaps the Ministry of Labour either should have been named in here or. . . . I will ask this: is the Ministry of Labour involved in this joint initiative between Ottawa and Victoria?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. That's what I was referring to earlier in the discussion in reference to skills, loans and grants. 

[ Page 3163 ]

This joint agreement makes it clear that apprentices are clients. We were on the negotiating team that achieved that agreement.

J. Dalton: Then I would take it that as far as the provincial administration, etc., on this joint agreement, that is a cooperative effort between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, and add to those two ministries the Ministry of Human Resources. Our ministry, the Ministry of Labour, will be on the management committee.

J. Dalton: Now, I'm just reaching behind me for other loose ends. It's nice to be able to have the luxury of grabbing other things. . . .

[5:30]

J. Dalton: No brown envelopes.

This was another government. I'm going back to 1993, actually. This was the former Labour and Consumer Services. . . . It's fascinating what's happened to this ministry over the last few years of this government and its predecessor. That's the only thing that I'm looking at.

This is an expanded fair-wage policy announcement. But given the apprenticeship features of the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, which this minister is responsible for, he's told the committee that we have 14,000 and that there's now a change in apprenticeships, through the fair-wage initiatives, which are going to be exported off-Island to the lower mainland. Can the ministry give us some sense of what they may be anticipating over the next few years in the way of apprenticeship numbers, so we can be ready for this avalanche of people in the apprenticeship system?

Hon. J. Cashore: The highest we've ever reached in the province was in 1980, when the number was about 20,000. Then there was a recession and a major impact on the apprenticeships in the forest industry. That's when the figures took quite a significant drop. Our next goal in terms of an increment would be to get back up to that 20,000 figure. Of course, at that time we'll be wanting to go beyond that, too.

J. Dalton: As the minister knows, certainly on this side we applaud the acceleration of apprenticeship, as long as it's properly managed and we don't have people slipping through the cracks, because either there's too many of them. . . . We probably could never have too many of them, but they are not being properly processed right from grade 11 through to wherever they may end up.

I have a couple of other things, more of a labour-relations nature, to ask the minister. Is it now 59 school districts in the province. . . ? There are several that could unfortunately be hit by strikes from the non-teaching staff, CUPE and others who are in negotiating mode or whose contracts have expired. I have already cited to this committee the not completely unfortunate but certainly undesirable one-day shutdown in my own children's school district in North Vancouver. I'm wondering if the ministry is. . . . Well, I'm sure it's keeping on top of these, but what can the minister share with us today as to the state of these various negotiations? I know this is also an education issue, but it's obviously a labour issue. Are we going to be able to get through to the end of June without any further labour disruptions in the school system?

Hon. J. Cashore: The member is right that the Ministry of Labour does have an interest in these situations, and we do monitor them. In doing so, there have been times when the circumstances behooved me as the minister to appoint a special mediator. I think two examples would be North Vancouver and Prince George. In both of those cases, I'm happy to report that it enabled what I think was a reasonable resolution without stoppage. We, of course, will continue to monitor and do our best to manage our part of it in as useful a way as we possibly can.

J. Dalton: The only other observation I'll make right now on that is with the experience of North Vancouver, which I'm obviously somewhat conversant with, the school district actually negotiated an agreement with CUPE which from their perspective. . . . Given that the North Vancouver school board was fired just a year ago for its fiscal mismanagement, they were able to stay within their budget. They were able to massage the figures and afford it, and it was the public sector employers' association that pulled the plug on it.

Again, this is obviously more specific to the Education ministry. I do appreciate the fact that the Minister of Labour interceded. In fact, I phoned the Minister of Education in his constituency office in Prince George on the Friday, and the strike was on the Monday next, I think. I wanted to know, both as a parent and as an MLA, what was going on and what initiatives were being taken. And he did tell me in that telephone conversation that the Minister of Labour had appointed a mediator. As it turned out, it was only a one-day stoppage, but it was clearly preventable from the beginning.

This isn't the role of the Minister of Labour. But if people had attended to their homework in the first place and if the public sector employers' association had kept its nose out of the thing, I would say that we wouldn't have had a one-day stoppage. So I don't know whether anybody learned from that exercise, but the people of North Vancouver were somewhat unsettled, needless to say, even by the one-day stoppage. Maybe that's part of the reason why we had some backlash not too long ago in my school district, when they tried a $2 million exercise in futility to ask us for referendum permission and were soundly rejected, thankfully.

The other thing I want to raise is the ferry union issue. The agreement with the Ferry and Marine Workers was negotiated sometime in March, I believe, and it has still not been resolved. Obviously this is potentially far more catastrophic than the one-day stoppage in the North Vancouver school district. We don't want strikes and disruptions in the public school system anywhere, and we certainly don't want strikes and looming situations in the essential service of ferry operations.

Can the minister advise the committee on the state of -- I wouldn't say negotiations, because the negotiations are over, as far as the agreement. . . . It's the fallout that has come since the agreement was agreed to that I am concerned about.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is a negotiated settlement that has not yet been ratified. Again, we continue to monitor that situation, and we'll seek to use our good offices if and when they are needed, where appropriate. At the present time we are aware that that is the next step to take place -- the union taking it to its membership for ratification.

[ Page 3164 ]

J. Dalton: So I take it from that that it may be. . . . Certainly the ministry is available to provide resources if this thing is not resolved. I've had some informal discussions with some of the ferry employees to try to find out, from their perspective, whether this thing is likely to be resolved soon. I see in today's Times Colonist that there's a meeting planned with a mediator for May 14. Is that a mediator that the ministry has appointed to assist in bringing these parties together?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is the mediator that was appointed by the Labour Relations Board.

J. Dalton: We will certainly keep our eye on that one. Hopefully, we're not going to be reading one day -- and we won't be reading it; we'll be experiencing it firsthand -- that there's a ferry strike. It would seem rather ironic and not dissimilar to my example of the North Van school district, which hammered out a deal with CUPE and then somebody interceded. Here we have a deal that's been hammered out between the parties, but obviously something of an internal nature is happening within the union.

We all want to avoid any disruption, particularly as we head closer to the tourist season. Many people would be totally inconvenienced -- not just the residents of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, etc., but thousands of visitors to this province. I see that we have nice, sunny days, so they're probably here already.

At this point, I think that's all I want to raise right now, given that we're only three minutes from the appointed adjournment hour. There may be other things to raise tomorrow. As we've agreed, workers compensation will be the main topic of discussion tomorrow afternoon.

Hon. J. Cashore: May I just make a point?

J. Dalton: Yes, indeed, and you can make the motion too, if you'd like.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to acknowledge that since the Labour Code came in in 1993, the labour-management relations climate in the province has been exemplary, both in terms of British Columbia's history and in terms of British Columbia's place in Confederation. The fact is that over the last 15 years, the number of worker-days lost due to strikes and lockouts has varied from a low of 164,485 to a high of 2,965,086. Between 1982 and 1990 the number of worker-days lost due to work stoppages averaged 775,000-plus. This is more than double the average of 334,416 worker-days lost since the new Labour Code was introduced in 1993. I'll leave it at that, but I think that does indicate that this point in our history reflects a time when we would have to assess that and say that the Labour Code has been a major factor in bringing about those circumstances.

The other thing is that while we do have the traditional roles -- sometimes positional roles -- between labour and management, I think we're also seeing some very outstanding examples of cooperation between labour and management. One very good example is ITAC. I want to commend leaders of business and of the labour movement for the efforts they have made. The fact is that as we speak, they sit down together and discuss various issues, and from their own perspectives, they both have a real interest in enhancing the economy of the province, which produces jobs and opportunities for investment.

Having said that, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada