[ Page 8695 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR GREATEST RESOURCE

One thousand young British Columbians, spread evenly throughout the 75 constituencies in our province, will have the opportunity to earn tuition credits through community service. Participants will receive a credit certificate with a value of up to $2,400, the equivalent of one full year of university tuition in British Columbia. Our province is providing the $3.4 million for this program. It is a pilot project, launched under the Premier's Youth Options initiative.

Who can apply for these 1,000 positions? Anyone between the ages of 15 and 24 who is a resident of British Columbia. Each youth can earn credits of $8 per hour for volunteer work. Firstly, our youth will gain great work experience through this program. It will strengthen our communities through the work that they do and the strength and vigour they will bring to this program. Thirdly, it will also increase access to education for some youth who maybe otherwise couldn't afford to head out to advanced education.

The minimum number of hours that can be volunteered is 100, which would give up to $800 credit towards tuition at a university or another higher education facility. The maximum number of hours is 300, which equals $2,400 -- the tuition fee for higher education programs in British Columbia. The program is in effect from June of this year through to June 30, 1999. Youth can apply through any one of the 16 host agencies spread throughout our province. Also, they can apply or make inquiries at any one of the 75 MLA offices in British Columbia or by calling 1-800-784-0055. It's also on a Web page via computer.

The 16 host agencies will work with community-based, non-profit organizations to make sure that this program is a success. Priority will be given to community development, culture, heritage, recreation, community safety and literacy. Our youth already volunteer many hours in our communities, but this program will also assist them, through that volunteerism, to enter advanced education facilities. Tuition fees in British Columbia are already the lowest of any province in Canada, except Quebec, if I'm right on that.

This program will assist community groups and students. Who can ask for more than that? Students from grade 10 on can accumulate credit-hours. Points must be redeemed within five years of when they are earned. Earned credits can be used for university, business college, aviation training, hairdressing school, computer training, accounting, and film and media arts -- among many other programs that youth want to enter so that they can get on with their futures as they grow up and become leaders in our province.

I see this program as a great assist to rural B.C. -- to constituencies like mine. Many times, of course, students from rural areas like mine have to pay for room and board or to stay at a university residence on top of tuition fees. A program like this will greatly assist students in a constituency like mine.

B. Penner: I appreciate the comments from my colleague the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. This is an interesting program, and I think it's a timely program for British Columbia.

I just want to take some time to reflect on the situation we're facing in British Columbia. Most visitors to our province are impressed with British Columbia. They think, I dare say, that we are blessed in our province -- blessed to live in such a beautiful part of the world with a generally mild climate and a pleasant population. We're blessed to live in a province that, at least until recently, has been the economic envy of virtually everyone. From the snow-capped mountains along the eastern and western extremes of the province to the roaring rivers and majestic forests, B.C. combines physical beauty with industry and economic know-how.

Unlike most provinces in Canada, the youth population in B.C. is actually growing. Many other parts of the country see a shrinking number of young people as part of their overall population. That means, years down the road from now, that those provinces will have a harder time sustaining their social programs, because they'll have a smaller workforce as the population greys and more and more people retire and become seniors. British Columbia has a unique opportunity if we can find meaningful work for our young people to expand our tax base to support social services off into the future.

That's where some of the difficulty has obviously been in British Columbia. I'm just looking at some statistics here. Two years ago our youth unemployment rate was about 14 percent. Today it's approximately 18 percent. There are 16,400 fewer jobs for young people today than in 1991. Clearly we have a tremendous challenge facing us here in British Columbia to find meaningful work for our young people. We need to turn the economy around and start producing jobs for everyone.

In terms of the specific program that my colleague the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke refers to, it will potentially create 1,000 spaces for people seeking to do volunteer work. I think it's worth noting that last year there were 141,000 young people enrolled in B.C. post-secondary institutions. So while it may be a good start to have 1,000 volunteer spaces, it still is a small fragment of the 141,000 overall that went to post-secondary schools in British Columbia last year.

Some other criticisms, which may or may not be fair, were mentioned in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun this week, on June 9. They note that the age limits are quite restrictive: between the ages of 15 and 24. Of course, many people attending post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are older than that and will not be eligible to qualify under this program. The editorial board at the Vancouver Sun also wondered whether existing volunteers will resent working for free when other students are getting $8 an hour. Now, I suppose we can't expand the program to help everyone. That

[ Page 8696 ]

[10:15]

I'd just like also to reflect on an experience I had last year when I was travelling in Southeast Asia. I'd gone on part of the Team Canada trade mission and took a bit of detour and ended up in Cambodia. While I was in Cambodia, I met a young person from British Columbia who was studying at the University of Toronto. That university gave him credit towards his master's degree for doing volunteer work while in Cambodia assisting people with agricultural production. I thought that was a meaningful experience we could give young people: not just allow them to earn credits by doing volunteer work in the province, but someday I would like to see us encourage young people to do humanitarian work in the most needy parts of the world. I know that the province of Alberta does have a program now that funds volunteer work in those types of situations in the harshest parts of the world, where people are truly in desperate need of food and other assistance. So perhaps someday, when British Columbia is in a position of no longer having a deficit. . . . I know that this year we're going to be borrowing more than $1 billion just to finance the operations of government. Hopefully, someday when we're in a surplus position, the B.C. government can consider some kind of program like that to encourage our students to volunteer overseas and help the most needy.

J. Doyle: I'd like, first of all, to thank the member for Chilliwack for his remarks. Just to refer to his remarks, B.C. is Canada's fastest-growing province. Our Premier, as Minister Responsible for Youth, with the clout of his office and by being Minister Responsible for Youth, is who initiatives like this do come from. It would be easy for newspapers like the Vancouver Sun to criticize this. But there never have been programs like this in place in the past. Compared to other provinces. . . . For instance, British Columbia's tuition is at least half the price of what it costs to go to university in Ontario.

Adding further to my statement, just imagine, hon. Speaker, a thousand of our youth working in our communities to assist community groups. This is great news. Many volunteer groups will gain from this injection of youth into their groups. Many volunteer groups are overstretched and tired. Most museums -- for instance, in my constituency -- have a group of volunteers that work hard at those museums. If our senior citizens could get one or two youth volunteers to assist them, it would do a lot for them to make their job a little easier and to keep museums in small communities open, for instance.

This community program is a great example of what government can do to assist our communities and our youth. Hopefully, other provinces will look at it. It links our communities, our education and work experience; this is all great for our youth. If we as a government can assist our youth to attain higher education, all of us are winners -- us in this building and all four million British Columbians.

Hopefully, all MLAs in this House will work hard to raise the awareness of this program, as was mentioned by the member for Chilliwack, so people do know where to apply for this program if it will assist them with their activities. If this youth initiative is a success, and I feel that it will be, I would hope, through the success of this program this year, that we will see it continue in years to come.

DIVERSITY WITH DIGNITY

When a hate crime is committed or when blatant discrimination occurs against an individual, family or community, people are not only stripped of their dignity but also of their fundamental human rights. As racism grows in our society, bringing with it discrimination, intolerance and hatred, we as legislators have an obligation to protect people's basic and fundamental human rights. We have an obligation to fight against racism, because hate crimes are not only acts of violence against individuals but also an assault against an entire group of people.

The promotion of hate literature is a principal mechanism for dividing our communities. Addressing the role of the Internet is the latest challenge in the struggle to combat racism. Recently we observed the community of Oliver dealing with this issue. Although the growth of the Internet and its role as a communications medium are extremely difficult to regulate, the town of Oliver was able to send a clear message by declaring their community as an official anti-racist community.

Unfortunately, we as legislators will not be able to stop all hate literature and to eradicate all hate crimes, but we must at least try. We must recognize that the victims of racial violence not only suffer the trauma of physical injury, property damage and emotional shock but are also likely to experience anger, fear and a sense of isolation. The psychological harm, mental anguish, insecurity and fear that remain with victims of any form of racism are not only personally disturbing, but the consequences break down the social fabric of our society.

Our country prides itself on its multi-ethnic composition. We as Canadians celebrate our diversity, and we triumph in the dissimilarity of our peoples. British Columbians can be especially proud of our ethnicity and our culturally diverse population. Our diversity is an integral part of our history.

In 1997 the Canadian Human Rights Commission reported that complaints on the grounds of race, colour and national or ethnic origin comprised 18 percent of their annual caseload. The real figures are likely to be even higher, as the majority of hate crimes go unreported, either because victims believe that nothing will be done or because they are afraid of retaliation. We must take steps to assure victims that their complaints will be heard and equitably addressed.

We must also address the continued and more subtle existence of prejudice. Discrimination and unequal oppor-

[ Page 8697 ]

According to a 1996 census, visible minorities make up 20 percent of British Columbia's population. In the lower mainland this percentage is much higher, often exceeding 50 percent in parts of Vancouver. One cannot measure the invaluable benefits that such a diverse population has brought to our province. Our differences, however, have often been the sources of misunderstandings. The murder of the Guru Nanak Temple's caretaker, Nirmal Singh Gill, allegedly by white supremacists, was an absolute tragedy and a blatant reminder of the horrific consequences of racism.

Later this month, a march and a rally will be held in Surrey to demonstrate intolerance of racism and clearly display the outrage that the majority of British Columbians feel toward those who support racist actions. It is time to take a strong stance in this province and, in cooperation with community efforts, to strengthen and enforce legislation against hate crimes and racial violence. We must lead by example and ensure that we continually and thoroughly respect and protect our diversity.

J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for her statement; I think it's very timely. She has focused on certainly one of the most concerning aspects of the way in which we address multicultural issues when we find that indeed there is the presence of racism. Certainly the example of hate crime is disturbing. I think she correctly brings the focus to the impact on children. We all recognize the innocence of children, and when they are impacted by such experiences, it is truly devastating and is the beginning of planting the seeds for difficulties later on.

I think that, very clearly, government has responsibility in this area. But it is not a responsibility that can be carried alone by government. As the member says through education among our general citizenry. . . . It is only in those situations in the office, in the school and in the neighbourhood that we begin to come to terms with that. Education can be quite enjoyable in addressing the issue of racism, because of the enjoyment of learning about the diversity and uniqueness of the peoples who make up our land. Indeed, except for aboriginal peoples, we are all either immigrants or descended from immigrants. It is that aspect of our society that I think contributes to making Canada a wonderful country and British Columbia a wonderful province.

I want to point out that our Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism has stated that B.C. is leading the nation in multiculturalism laws, human rights legislation and financial support to organizations. No less than Vera Radyo, executive director of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C., validates that statement when she says: "I think B.C. is the only provincial government that in the last five years has actually increased funding."

I think we need to take a look at the goals that we are trying to achieve and the principles by which we seek to achieve those goals. We need to ensure that they are implicit and explicit in whatever we do, both as citizens and as government, so that when it comes to issues of hiring, issues of education and issues of community settlement and development, we are always cognizant -- going back to the point about children -- that the way children experience the attitudes of adults will determine the kind of future they will inherit when they become adults.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for his remarks. Much has been done in this province, but there is still much to do. I agree with the member when he talks about involving children.

A grade 7 student at Simonds Elementary School in my riding of Langley wrote a speech. His name is Kelvin Morris. This is a speech on racism that he prepared to deliver to his classmates. I'm going to read a little bit of it. He says:

"Racism is saying that you are better than someone who has different skin colour than you. Racism has been around since the beginning of time. It has caused problems for many people. Your parents and their parents have strong feelings about race, religion and politics. It's up to us, as the younger generation, to be more educated about racism.

"Not only is our skin colour different, but our languages are too. Think of how boring it would be with only one language. We wouldn't have songs like the 'Macarena.' If it weren't for different cultures, we wouldn't have egg rolls or tacos. And what would life be like without lasagna?

"Before saying something hurtful to someone different than you, think about it, because if it would hurt you, chances are it will hurt them. We should take advantage of the skills that people from different countries have to offer. Be respectful of their heritage and teach them about yours. Canada will be a stronger country if we take a stand against racism. We should be proud to be part of the human race and proud to have so many ethnic backgrounds."

As elected representatives in this House and creators of legislation and public policy in this province, we have a special responsibility to dedicate ourselves to the task of abolishing all forms of racial prejudice and discrimination and violence in British Columbia. We must send the unmistakable message that racism, in all its forms, will not be tolerated. We must also involve all of society in this responsibility. Creative and strategic approaches to this task must be developed in conjunction with public education programs such as those in our schools.

[10:30]

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Recently I read a column in one of my local newspapers about the Vancouver Island marmot, a column questioning the scientific and public attention paid to this creature, one of the world's most critically endangered mammals. "Species

[ Page 8698 ]

Hon. Speaker, over 150 vertebrate species -- that is, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles -- as well as many plant species and ecosystems are currently on the B.C. red list of species in danger of becoming extinct. Three species of particular interest to me in my constituency of the Comox Valley are the Vancouver Island marmot, the east coast Vancouver Island coho and the Garry oak ecosystem.

We've heard a lot in these past few weeks, probably most of us for the first time, about the Vancouver Island marmot. Mount Washington, just outside Strathcona Provincial Park, was host to a colony of these marmots until the late 1980s, when they disappeared completely. By 1997 the total population on Vancouver Island was reduced to about 150, with only 20 to 30 breeding-age females. It's the only species of mammal that is found in British Columbia and nowhere else in the world. Small numbers make the species extremely vulnerable to predation, to disease outbreak or to extinction by a catastrophic event such as a fire or the weather.

With such small numbers, monitoring and protection programs are not sufficient to ensure survival of the species. That is why a captive breeding program has begun at the Metro Toronto Zoo, and this year it will be extended to the Calgary Zoo for their future reintroduction into the wild. Only today I learned from a reliable source -- that is, a member of the press -- of work that's begun towards a captive breeding program at the Mount Washington site. Critical to the success of this program is a high level of public awareness and commitment to support the government and industry partnership which has flourished over the past ten years. You see, the habitat of the Vancouver Island marmot is largely on privately held lands, lands owned by MacMillan Bloedel, TimberWest or the Mount Washington ski corporation. It is a public commitment that actually makes a difference in terms of our ability to preserve and enhance species that are on the verge of extinction.

I'm going to speak for a moment about the east Vancouver Island coho and, in particular, about the urban salmon habitat program. Just this week, the grants were announced for the urban salmon habitat program, 15 of which went to organizations in the Comox-Strathcona area. Many of these organizations are community groups that have come together out of particular interest in preserving or enhancing the coho. Some of these organizations are groups of people who have enjoyed recreational fishing in the past. They may be commercial fishermen. They may be people who have never previously had anything to do with the fishery in any respect but who have come to be involved in something that is much greater than themselves. One of these groups is a group of home schooling families, which has taken on a particular watershed and has benefited from urban salmon habitat program funds over the years.

The other species I want to speak about briefly is the Garry oak. In Courtenay we find the most northerly sizeable grove of Garry oaks. It's not just the trees themselves that are important but the delicate ecosystem which comprises a Garry oak grove. Recently, the expansion of the local arena threatened the integrity of the grove, but alert community members organized to protect the grove and ensure that construction would not impact on it.

Whether or not you call yourself an environmentalist, there are moments when our attention is completely captivated by the plight of a particular species. Children, in particular, and communities organize around that particular species, and that can be the opening of a door into a much greater understanding of our environment. Government has a part to play in this. Often government must lead, but without the support of communities across British Columbia, we would never be able to preserve and enhance our delicate environment.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I'm very pleased to recognize in the gallery today quite a number of young students from Margaret Jenkins Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. O'Connor, and several parents. I understand they're going to be meeting with you and asking you some interesting questions later. Members, please welcome them.

M. Coell: I am pleased to reply to the member's comments on endangered species and endangered spaces. I concur with many of her remarks. I would like to share with the member two experiences I had early in life, so that she might understand how I view endangered species and endangered spaces. The image I wish to portray is as vivid in my mind today as it was 35 years ago. I was lucky enough to grow up in a municipality called Saanich, a stone's throw away from the Colquitz Creek river system. Thirty-five years ago you could swim in that creek. Crayfish were visible, salmon spawned in that creek, and it was filled with ducks, minks and owls, and surrounded by Garry oaks. It was truly a beautiful place to grow up and to enjoy -- and I did.

I can remember, when I was about nine years old, walking down there with my fishing rod and a friend and running into two teenage boys who said: "Would you like to see what we did this morning?" We said, "Yes," and they showed us what they had done that morning. They had killed ducks, minks, owls, and they had them all lined up. I was shocked and horrified by that. That image of two young people who didn't respect animals, who hadn't been taught to respect nature, is still in my mind. I think that that, for me, showed a need for education at a very early age, for people to respect animals and species. I've carried that with me to this day.

The other is that slowly that same place, over a period of time, with the expansion of Saanich, became very polluted, and access was cut off because of houses. It was turned into a drainage ditch, and the septic tanks were dumped right into the creek. It lost its coho salmon that spawned; it lost its crayfish; it lost its wildlife. It soon became overgrown with weeds and broom, and basically was used as a drainage ditch for many years. I was very sad, and I know that a lot of people in Saanich were. But something happened, in that the municipality started to buy property, started to redevelop and to replace trees that had been cut down, started to introduce salmon to that stream again. Today it's a vibrant place where people can walk, where fish spawn, where birds nest. It hasn't returned to near what I remember as a child, but the lessons I learned are still there with me.

[ Page 8699 ]

I hope that, in sharing those two thoughts with the member, she has an understanding of how I view environmental protection. I thank her for her comments. I very much agree with them.

E. Gillespie: I'm very appreciative of the member's comments and the story of his experience. I had a good opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to take my 11-year-old son to the Fanny Bay Salmonid Enhancement Society's major celebration. We released a number of coho -- not fry, the next size up -- into the river. My son had the opportunity to do that, and I think that kind of hands-on experience really carries something with you. I've watched many classes of children who've taken on the responsibility of raising fry and releasing them into streams around the Comox Valley and seen how much more aware they are of their own activities with respect to those streams -- how washing cars and changing your oil and that sort of thing has an effect on the habitat of our endangered coho and, certainly, all other species.

I want to be very clear about the commitment of British Columbia to the protection of species in ecosystems at risk and to say that it's not at all without controversy. It's a very controversial area, because wherever you go to protect species, you're going to run into business interests or industrial interests or human interests with respect to residential issues and agriculture. We're always coming face to face with those interests with respect to environmental issues.

B.C. is a signatory to the Rio convention of 1992, committing our province to protection of endangered species and to biodiversity. We have committed to an accord with the federal government, and the federal government is committed to introducing endangered-species legislation. British Columbia has taken a number of initiatives in order to protect the environment in British Columbia: our protected-areas strategy, the Forest Practices Code, the Environmental Assessment Act, the grizzly bear conservation strategy. And we've taken a leadership role in monitoring species at risk and contributing to recovery efforts, such as those for the marmot, which I have spoken about already.

Once again, I would like to emphasize that the role of communities in protecting species and ecosystems at risk is primary. Without the support of people in communities. . . . And I would agree with the member that that starts at a very young age. If children are exposed to their place in the environment, how they fit into the natural cycle and the importance of the natural cycle itself, then their commitment can grow into a larger commitment of families and communities. We have seen many cases where people have organized around particular species and how that has grown into a much greater movement.

ILLICIT DRUGS: KILLER OF PEOPLE,
KILLER OF CITIES

[10:45]

Throughout history, drugs have been used for religious, social and medical reasons. Society has controlled, prohibited and regulated their use for hundreds of years. Countries have fought wars in the past over the use of opium and heroin. Hundreds of billions of Canadian dollars have gone into the policing of drugs over the years, but never before has drug use and the drug trade become so prevalent and so profitable as it is today.

The United Nations' own estimates of the total revenue accruing from the illicit drug trade range as high as $400 billion (U.S.) a year. At that level it would be equivalent to 8 percent of the total international trade in iron, steel and motor vehicles. We now have an illicit drug industry with profits that rank with the top industries in the world. The only difference is: it's totally illegal, it's growing faster than any of the other industries and it's killing people.

The drug trade corrupts individuals and governments. It now uses the realities and opportunities of our contemporary world, from computers to international banks. International drug traffickers launder their money to hide the illegal funds from detection, and in so doing they corrupt our financial institutions as well. It has become a very sophisticated industry that does not respect national boundaries or the laws of nations. The addictive substances that are sold range from cocaine and heroin to a host of other drugs originating in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. They find their way into our cities, into our schools and into our homes.

This brings me to the city of Vancouver, which has been designated by American and Canadian drug enforcement authorities as a major port of entry for drugs to enter Canada and the United States. In the past decade, we have seen an increase in drug abuse and many of the problems associated with it. The spread of AIDS, prostitution, gangs and increased breaking and entering are all associated with the drug trade. The Vancouver council, its police department and its citizens need help to fight this problem.

The increase in drug trafficking cost the lives of 1,653 people in British Columbia from 1990 to 1997 -- 693 of them in the city of Vancouver alone. Drug deaths by suicide, by overdose and by murder are all preventable deaths. The drug industry is powerful; it kills people, and if we let it, it will kill our cities. If we think that we can confine illicit drugs to the downtown east side of Vancouver, we are wrong. We are fighting a rear-guard action.

The drug connection in Vancouver runs deep. It also runs deep in British Columbia and in Canada. I think it's important

[ Page 8700 ]

Many attitudes toward the drug trade and to drug abuse have changed, and I think that we all see that there's no easy answer. As a matter of fact, at present there is no answer that seems to be working to stop the killing and to stop the increase in trafficking that continues to corrupt our institutions, our way of life and the children of this country and this province. We have had national drug strategies, international drug strategies and wars on drugs. In British Columbia we had the Cain report in 1994. Federally, we had the Le Dain commission in the early seventies. And it can be said today, as it was in the early seventies, that our programs are all over the map in the delivery of enforcement, in abuse and in imprisonment. There is no central drug strategy in Canada that is coordinated with the provinces and with community policing.

I'm suggesting to you that if you are in a war and you are losing, you should reconsider your battle plan. I'm not suggesting that we give up the battle because it seems hopeless. I am suggesting that it's time to focus our energies, find a consensus on where the Canadian people want to go and develop a strategy for the new millennium. I believe that it is extremely important for all British Columbians. As I said, Vancouver has been defined by U.S. and police agencies as the gateway for southeast Asian heroin flooding North America. If the outlook for Vancouver is grim, it is grim for all British Columbians in every community.

This new global high-tech industry of drug traffickers will continue to corrupt people at all levels of society in order for it to succeed.

I suggest to you today that Canada and British Columbia must have a royal commission on illicit drug industry and its effects on our cities and on our individuals. We need to develop a new strategy for the new millennium that will be focused and coordinated. The programs delivered by government must be coordinated with law enforcement, prevention and suppression of trafficking at the community level as well as the international level.

The development of a drug control policy must begin with a reinstatement of principles, goals and priorities. The primary objectives should be to minimize the consumption of illicit drugs that are harmful to the health and safety of all citizens. These must be primary in our new drug strategy. We must begin to turn back the tide, to save lives and to make our cities safe again. The hundreds of billions of dollars that all three levels of government spend each year to deter, to enforce and to cure drug abuse make it mandatory that a national consensus be developed in the new millennium. We must ask the people of Canada where then want us to go.

G. Janssen: Certainly, I and the entire House appreciate the remarks of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. We have seen in British Columbia and Washington a tremendous increase in the use of drugs and in the effects thereof. We have responded with the state of Washington to do regular highway spot checks to stop the illicit movement of drugs across the border.

As we all know, some of the most potent marijuana and hashish now comes from British Columbia. It is grown, as we regularly see on television night after night when drug busts are made, in homes that are usually rented and that are well-equipped with hydroponics and with grow lamps. It is becoming more and more difficult to patrol.

The RCMP are consolidating their drug officers and their drug units into larger units. Rather than having up to 11 units operating in the lower mainland and on lower Vancouver Island, they are consolidating them so that there is better communication. Obviously, as the member has pointed out, there are not only national drug rings but international cartels that are operating and dealing in illicit drugs.

We have seen a dramatic reduction in the crime rate in Surrey and a reduction in Port Coquitlam, in Vancouver, by as much as 17 percent. However, as that crime rate drops overall, the crime rate in break-ins -- particularly in the Richmond area -- and armed robberies is increasing. This is a direct result of the exploitation of human beings with drugs. The need to have the drug, once addicted, is so great that almost any risk will be taken to achieve the means to supply those drugs.

The issue of deaths rising with drug use is particularly a concern, because the public really doesn't care. The public views the deaths from the use of illicit drugs as something that perhaps happens from somebody making their own choices. Yet these are our children, our family members, that are dying on the streets of Vancouver, of Victoria, of our major cities. What we need to address in this province and this country is an awareness. Certainly, if that many people were dying from the illicit use of alcohol or from the overuse of other prescription drugs or from traffic accidents, we would be looking for society to somehow try to correct that. Yet as a society we have more or less ignored people dying from illicit drug use on our streets.

I agree with the member: there should be a national program and a national awareness, perhaps even a royal commission to examine where we are going with our drug programs, which now seem disjointed -- federally, provincially and interprovincially. Perhaps we should even look at what my home country of Holland and Switzerland have done, which is the medical prescribing of addictive drugs, so that the person who is addicted -- and certainly we can all agree that this is a health problem, not a crime problem -- can go to a doctor, receive medical advice and treatment, and perhaps even receive illicit drugs, as we now know them, or some alternative like methadone, so that they have contact with some real help. It's worked in other countries. It's a very complicated and very controversial program, but I don't think it's something that we can ignore. I certainly hope that if a royal commission is established it is something that it will be prepared to look at.

M. Coell: I appreciate the thoughts of the member. What both of us are saying is that a national strategy needs to be developed. For too long, it's been three levels of government doing what they think is best. I think that, in the long run, the Canadian people as a whole need to be part of determining a strategy for the new millennium. Every one of these deaths in Vancouver and across British Columbia is preventable, and I think that's what we have to work towards. It's the value of one human life.

I agree with the comments of my colleague across the floor, in that many people don't seem to care about what's going on until it affects them. I think you just have to look at downtown Vancouver and the problems now being faced by their city council and police board. That problem has grown from a couple of corners in East Vancouver to covering a good

[ Page 8701 ]

I see a need to involve the people of British Columbia and Canada in that strategy and to look at the options that we have for drug treatment -- from medical legalization to decriminalization. Canada has to look at those concepts and at how we enforce the penalties for drug trafficking. In some instances, people get off on technicalities because they can hire the best lawyers, the best accountants, in the world -- because the money is so great in that business. We're not in a war like the drug wars in the sixties and seventies; we're into a high-tech, high-profit era of the drug trade. We have to be coordinated if we're going to save lives and protect our communities.

I thank you for the opportunity to present this.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I thank all the members for their statements today.

[11:00]

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: In the precincts this morning -- and I'm hopeful that they will be in the gallery momentarily -- are about 30 visitors. They are grade 7 students from Noel Booth Elementary School in Langley. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Amada and by a number of adults -- parents who are here to see how government works. Hopefully, they are going to have a wonderful day in the precincts and in Victoria, and I'd like the House to please help me make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members for their thoughtful presentations this morning.

Now I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, in Committee A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In Committee B we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

G. Abbott: This morning I'd like to continue on with questions with respect to Forest Renewal B.C., moving along to New Forest Opportunities as time permits. But prior to that, one of my colleagues has a specific question around a silviculture issue, and I'll ask him to address that now.

D. Symons: I understand that a year or so ago, young students who were working as tree planters were offered either a scholarship or -- I don't know -- financial assistance in order to continue their studies at university, in lieu of doing the tree-planting, I believe. I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with the program that was offered to them, and whether that comes under his responsibility. If not, can he tell me where it might be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not familiar with it. If the member has some information that it is related to FRBC, I would be pleased to try to dig, but the officials with me don't recognize that program.

D. Symons: I'll just explain a little bit of what I understand of the program. There was a young lad, and apparently there were more of them, who were tree-planters and students. Basically, last summer they were given the option of retiring from tree-planting and getting $400 a week, as long as they stayed in their post-secondary education courses. It seems to be related to the silviculture program, and I suspected that the money was coming from FRBC. Is that not true?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Without knowing the names, the program or the institution, what it could be is that some young people who happened to be students and happened to be tree-planters qualified for the forest worker transition program. If they qualified as a displaced forest worker, they may well have qualified for one of the worker transition programs.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me whether a student who is not a year-round tree-planter, but rather just there for a summer job when he's going to university. . . . Would that sort of work be covered through FRBC -- through this worker transition plan? Would they be eligible? They weren't professional tree-planters and they're not, in my understanding of it, in a case where they're learning, or where they're caught in one job that's disappearing and they're being trained for another job. They're just there as summer students.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was not a student program, and it isn't a student program. But many tree-planters are part-time, not full-time, so it may be a coincidence that they were students as well as part-time. If they had 700 hours in two years -- that year and the year immediately preceding -- and 65 percent of their income, then they do qualify as displaced forest workers for the worker transition program.

D. Symons: Since I gather that this government is going to be continuing with silviculture projects around the province, then silviculture wouldn't be a sunset industry. It would seem, then, that if you're paying people to attend university as a work transition, you're transitioning them out of a job that does exist, not as displaced forest workers who are coming in. The reason for my question is that it appears to me that what you're doing, basically, is buying off people who are tree-planters so that you can make space for displaced forest workers to come in and become those tree-planters. So it's not a case of training somebody for a new job; it's a case of making a space so you can put somebody into that position under your program.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is not the intention of the program. It's not a program designed for what the member says we're doing. Silviculture is continuing, and it will be a program funded by both. . . . Industry is doing a certain amount of silviculture -- less when the markets are down and they're cutting less. If there's a general shrinkage in FRBC budgets, there will be less enhanced forestry generally, because we've had record levels of expenditure -- way beyond what we had projected. So there may be less work. Not all the jobs in silviculture that there were before are there, so there may well be people who are displaced.

D. Symons: Well, not to flog this issue, but from what you are saying, silviculture is not a sunset industry. I'm just

[ Page 8702 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is not the intention, and that is not the way the programs are designed. You talk about silviculture. You have to distinguish. . . . The money that Forest Renewal is spending is on enhanced silviculture. We've said that it doesn't matter where you're displaced from: basic silviculture, enhanced silviculture, the pulp industry, the solid wood industry. Wherever you're displaced from, you qualify equally for those programs. Nobody is guaranteeing all the jobs that are out there in exactly the same sectors. Some parts of the sectors shrink and some parts expand. But if the person qualified, was truly displaced under the criteria and no longer had a job. . . . Not that there aren't some jobs out there, because for a displaced forest worker in the solid wood industry, there is a still a solid wood industry out there. But they may be generally displaced and no longer have a job. So if their job is gone, then they may qualify for some kind of training. The whole intent of the program is to give a fair chance to people to be retrained somewhere in the industry and, in some cases, out of the industry.

D. Symons: Well, as I understand it from my source, last year somebody from the ministry was approaching these students who had jobs planting trees and was basically encouraging them to apply for your forest worker transition program. They had no intention. . . . They weren't asking for that. It was suggested to them that they might apply for this, and I gather from everything the minister has told me that they're now being paid $400 a week not to work in the forest industry and to continue their education, which they were planning to do with their earnings from tree-planting anyway.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we know of no instruction, nor of anyone from the ministry or FRBC who is out there encouraging that to happen. So if you have a name, then provide it to us. We want to know about it; we want to track it down.

G. Abbott: Yesterday I advised the minister that I would be looking for some figures around the targets for treatment areas in the current operating year. I wanted to see what the projection was, in hectares presumably, for spacing, pruning, fertilizing, planting, backlog planting and so on. I presume, given that we've had the evening to work on that, that the minister can now provide me with those figures. I'd like a breakdown in terms of coast and interior and a breakdown by category.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I explained yesterday -- I may not have. . . . Page 19 of the business plan has the breakdown of the projects, the person-years of employment, the hectares treated and, in this case, the number of bridges replaced. It is also broken down by the six regions. So it's on page 19, and I would encourage discussion of that versus performance or whatever at the standing committee. You can get into that information in some detail, if you're looking at variance or at some details on the breakdown of those targets. But it's there. For example, it tells you that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, there are 194 projects; in total, there is $6.8 million in backlog silviculture; and the number of hectares treated in all programs is 26,000.

The FRBC officials would gladly speak on performance in previous years in some detail.

G. Abbott: Obviously the minister misunderstood my request of yesterday. I wasn't looking for the detail that's contained on page 19. I wanted to get a breakdown on what we were doing in those different categories. The whole flow of the argument at that point in time was around how we were going to measure the efficacy of the different forms of treatment over time, and I wanted to get a more precise idea of their goals in terms of hectarage -- what they were proposing to achieve on those. I see the total area there, but I was looking for a breakdown within that category. I understood that I was going to get that today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that we'd have to generate that information. We have it; it's just that we have to go multi-year agreement by multi-year agreement. These are the overall targets, and we would have to. . . . Well, we haven't signed all of the agreements. These are the targets. You want to know what has been done. Some of it hasn't started yet. So I'm just a little unclear on what the member is looking for.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I've tried to be very straightforward with the minister throughout these estimates. I tried to give him 24 hours' warning that I was looking for some kind of breakdown in terms of what our goals are in the current year for spacing, pruning, fertilizing projects and that kind of thing. Now I understand that the information can be generated but that apparently what I was looking for wasn't understood on the other side. Pardon my frustration, but I'm feeling some here, because I tried to be as clear as I could about what we were looking for. I didn't think there was any misunderstanding about what the heck we were looking for; in my estimation, it wasn't that complicated. I guess we can't pursue this line, given that it appears that we don't have that information here.

[11:15]

G. Abbott: What I was looking for -- maybe it translates into volume better than value; I'm not sure -- was what the goals were on the coast and in the interior, in terms of how many hectares we wanted to achieve in terms of spacing, how many in pruning, how many in fertilizing, and that kind of thing, to get an idea of where the emphasis was going to be in the current year around those kinds of projects. Again, we had an extended discussion yesterday, and I don't want to go into it today. We've got a time element in these estimates, and I don't want to redo what we've already done.

We had an extensive discussion yesterday around measuring effectiveness over time. Hopefully, one of the ways we'll be able to assist ourselves in measuring our performance over time is by setting out what it is we're trying to do and then looking back to see how well we did in achieving those

[ Page 8703 ]

Could the minister tell me the current status with respect to the model that is going to be used in the interior of British Columbia for the delivery of enhanced and/or other FRBC silviculture projects in the current year? Obviously we have NFO on the coast. What's the situation, the status, with respect to the issue in the interior?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The accord called for some work arrangements, some delivery model, to be developed between industry and the IWA. That is being worked on now; it's the subject of negotiations. There is a facilitator or mediator standing by who, in the end, can arbitrate if there's no agreement.

G. Abbott: I have yet to meet anyone in the forest industry or in the silviculture business in the interior of British Columbia who wants to have anything to do with the New Forest Opportunities model, frankly. Can the minister advise me who are the proponents of that model in the interior? Why is it that we continue to attempt to force that model onto the silviculture industry in the interior?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The NFO model is not forced on the people of the interior. In fact, the accord states that they weren't going to start with a model like the Island Highway model, which the coast opted for. So discussions were pursued along those lines. It's been put to the parties to come up with some model that will effectively prepare for the hiring of displaced forest workers on an equitable basis -- some way to sort out those people who qualify as displaced workers, with the priorities being local and first nations. Somebody has to decide who gets hired along those lines. We put it to industry and a group representing labour to come up with a model, and there are no more instructions than that.

G. Abbott: Given that we are now six months into 1998 and that to this point, at least, if anything has occurred in the way of enhanced silviculture projects in the interior, it would be on the same basis as it has been conducted in the past -- that is, I guess, essentially a market-driven, competitive, contract-driven model of silviculture delivery -- are the enhanced silviculture projects in the interior that are funded by FRBC awaiting the outcome of this model? Or is work proceeding in the absence of a conclusion of those negotiations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Work is proceeding.

G. Abbott: On what model is it proceeding?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On existing arrangements -- the same way it's been done before.

G. Abbott: And what is it in the nature of the existing arrangements which is proving troublesome to the government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that there are some 6,000 displaced forest workers at the coast who have in one way or another registered, who can't get access to some of the FRBC jobs. The NFO model is going to allow and facilitate that. In the interior, some one thousand people are enrolled in the worker transition program. There is no mechanism for them to get access to existing FRBC contracts.

G. Abbott: What puzzles me is: what barrier would exist? I know enough about the silviculture industry and tree-planting and so on to know that if there are contracts, if there is work to be done, people put their names forward through a variety of mechanisms; they're hired on to the crews and they go to work. I'm puzzled what barrier there is to the 1,000 displaced interior forest workers picking up jobs in the woods. There is none. Tell me what's preventing them from getting those jobs. I know of absolutely nothing.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It might be training; they might need to be trained to do it. The contracting community may want to hire someone else -- may not want to hire these people. The commitment is to give equal opportunity to people, wherever they're displaced, to work on a project funded by FRBC. And it's not the basic silviculture work; that's excluded.

G. Abbott: I know lots of people who work in the silviculture industry. What happens is that if a silviculture contractor needs someone to help him do some spacing or pruning or thinning or tree-planting, if he doesn't have a full crew, he'll go to the marketplace and find people. And if he wants them to work, he'll train them. There's lots of training being done on the job in the interior; it does not pose a barrier to people working in the silviculture industry.

What we're doing -- what the government seems intent on doing -- is taking something that works very well, that works very efficiently, very productively, and turning it into another bureaucratic nightmare. There is no reason; there are no real barriers to people getting jobs in silviculture in the interior. The contractors, when they need people, will train them. Is that not the case? I'm not aware of any contractor who would not assist with the training of people he wants to work for him.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is no mechanism -- other than, as the member says, some wide-open market -- to take people who are permanently displaced in the forest industry and place them in FRBC-funded jobs. We are moving towards multi-year agreements. We're trying to create those jobs so that they're longer-term, so that there's planning, so that there are more permanent jobs, and to give those people -- whether they were working in basic, in enhanced -- in all aspects of the industry an equal opportunity to participate and to take some of the longer-term jobs that we expect to come from the multi-year agreements.

G. Abbott: What's just been said here, I think, is that we have a body of permanently displaced forest workers in the interior -- and the estimate, the minister says, is about 1,000 right now. And we need to take those displaced forest workers and move them from wherever they are -- perhaps it's unemployment insurance or social assistance, or whatever. . . . They want to get back to work in the woods.

I think the preference, probably, of the great majority of the 1,000 would be to go back to mill jobs somewhere. Most of the people I know who work in the industry -- particularly guys who are getting up into their forties, fifties or sixties -- are not looking to go out tree-planting. They are hoping to get jobs in the industry that incorporate their skills again. But if they are in that unfortunate position where their prospects, for whatever reason, are limited in terms of getting jobs back in another mill situation, we want to get them from their current place on the unemployment line and get them working on an FRBC-funded enhanced forestry project.

The minister says we need a mechanism to move them from unemployment into an FRBC-funded enhanced silvi-

[ Page 8704 ]

But right now let's just deal with this issue in the interior with the 1,000 laid-off workers. We need to get them from the unemployment line into work with a contractor who has an FRBC enhanced silviculture contract for spacing, pruning, thinning -- whatever. He's saying we need a mechanism to move them from A to B. Well, maybe the mechanism is simply that the contractor hires them. I presume that's what is happening now. Unless FRBC is posing some barrier to move from point A to point B, I don't know what barrier would exist to prevent that from happening. Perhaps the minister can tell me that.

F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: It's a pleasure for me to introduce the mine rescue team from Line Creek Resources today. They won first place in the zone competition in Elkford on May 30 this year. The provincial competition is being held in Victoria on Saturday, June 13, at 9 a.m. -- that's tomorrow -- at the Construction Aggregates pit at 3497 Metchosin Road in Victoria. I would like to introduce Frank Walsh, Rob Robinson, Bill Bolen, Kevin Hilderbrandt, Kevin Beattie, Dean Hills and their coach Gerald Mattl. These workers are represented at the minesite by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115. Would the House please make them welcome and wish them good luck tomorrow.

[11:30]

Leave granted.

E. Walsh: I would like to join my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds by welcoming the first-aid mine rescue teams that are here from my riding -- from Elkford, Sparwood and Cranbrook, actually. They make up these teams from all over the valley. I would also like to welcome their partners who are here with them and the youngest member, who is also an up-and-coming first-aider and rescuer: Dean Hills's daughter. She is up in the gallery. I would like to ask the House to please welcome them and wish them all luck in the competitions this weekend. I know that I represent the best, and they are all here. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to go back to the basics here. When the jobs and timber accord was agreed to, industry agreed to ensure a priority hiring system that first provides for the hiring of local displaced forest workers and ensures increased employment for native people in forest work, followed by a local hiring process for qualified local workers. There is no mechanism to do that. You could maybe make it a requirement of the contract that the companies administer, but there's no mechanism to do that. Somebody has to do it, whether it's industry, an agency or some cooperative venture between industry and labour. We've put it to the industry to come up with a mechanism. We've said that government and industry acknowledge that the interior negotiations would be based on respect for the diversity of the interior industry, and we've acknowledged that the industry's position in those negotiations will be that an alternative to the Highway Constructors Ltd. model must be sought.

G. Abbott: Good. Maybe we're getting somewhere here. The issue is: how do we achieve the very practical measure of moving permanently displaced forest workers from that position of unemployment to those enhanced silviculture projects which are delivered by contract and funded by Forest Renewal B.C.? If the companies themselves can do it, as I guess they are now -- that's essentially the mechanism that's being used -- that's fine. I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this. I think it's important that rather than trying to impose something that will add considerable expense to the industry and make our industry less efficient, less productive, less competitive -- as I suggest New Forest Opportunities will -- we go to a very simple mechanism. It doesn't have to be elaborate. There are all kinds of different federal and provincial organizations in communities to assist people in finding work. I don't think we have to go through elaborate and expensive processes to achieve that.

In fact, I want to move to the New Forest Opportunities model now. I've made this argument, and I assure the minister that I've made this argument as forcefully as I can in the committee, and I've taken it as far as I can in the committee, and I need to take it up here. I am absolutely, fundamentally appalled by what has been done with respect to the silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia. I think that what has happened there is dead wrong, and I'm going to take that argument up here today.

What has happened is that Forest Renewal B.C., through the subsidiary corporation of New Forest Opportunities Ltd., has taken what has been a very efficient, very productive silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia and is in the process of turning it into another one of the bureaucratic monsters that this government is so fond of creating in order to create the illusion of creating new jobs. Whether we call it the jobs and timber accord, or whatever nonsensical scheme is being advocated by the government this week to pretend that they are creating rather than destroying jobs in the forest. . . .

What is fundamentally wrong with the New Forest Opportunities Ltd. approach is that it forces unionization on an industry that may or may not be prepared to accept it. Now, I have lots of respect for the IWA. I have no problem with them; they've done a lot for working people in the province. What I take absolute exception to is this government coercing people into joining the IWA in order to access FRBC-funded enhanced forestry projects. That's dead wrong. There is everything wrong with that. It is a fundamental right for people in this province to organize and to form unions. What's being done here, with New Forest Opportunities, is in fact an abridgment of a fundamental right -- a violation of a fundamental right -- not to join a union. And it's dead wrong -- dead wrong -- what's happening with new Forest Opportunities.

I'm sure we're going to have a vigorous debate around this. I want to begin by asking the minister about what elements in the catalogue of FRBC projects are included in the New Forest Opportunities approach. My understanding has always been that tree-planting would be exempt from this, but that all of the catalogue of things associated with enhanced forestry, including spacing, brushing, pruning and so on --

[ Page 8705 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The shorthand is that it's all the land-based programs: pruning, brushing, weeding, recreation, spacing, watershed restoration and some inventory.

G. Abbott: In short, New Forest Opportunities applies to everything in the catalogue, with the exception of tree-planting. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On behalf of the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, I have the utmost pleasure in recognizing that we have with us 50 grade 6 students and their teacher, Miss Rispin, from Betty Huff Elementary School in Surrey. Surrey is one of my favourite places; I have a lot of relatives and friends living there. I ask the House to give a special welcome to these children, their teacher and any other adults that might be with them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's all land-based programs except tree-planting.

G. Abbott: A recent press release -- or a handout, at least -- from New Forest Opportunities makes the following statement: "Both union and non-union workers will share in the benefits which flow from the collective agreement." I've spent considerable time studying the collective agreement and trying to reconcile that statement with the actual terms incorporated in the agreement. I simply don't see where there is anything in this agreement which in any way protects the rights of a non-union worker in this province in relation to FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture projects.

We find, for example, in terms of union security: "All employees under this agreement shall become members of the designated local union" -- i.e., the IWA. They have to become members within 15 days, and so on. It's very clear that anyone who wishes to access employment on an FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture project -- or indeed, any FRBC-funded project on the coast, with the possible exception of tree-planting -- will have to join the IWA. In fact, on the next page of the agreement is the IWA-Canada checkoff, which seeks names and asks: "Are you an IWA-Canada member? In what IWA operation were you last employed? What is your local union?" It goes on to advise of union initiation fees, union back dues, union dues, union assessments and so on.

Clearly this agreement is built, in its entirety, on the IWA and the requirement that anyone who wishes to seek employment through New Forest Opportunities is going to have to become a member of the IWA for the purpose of those projects. Further, I suspect this is where the minister will go in his response, in terms of outlining the enormous benefits of this to non-union workers. He'll talk about the employer management rights on page 9. These say, for example: "The management, operation, direction and promotion of employees is vested exclusively with the employer. . . ." That's great. "Subject to the provisions of this agreement, the forgoing enumeration of management rights shall not be deemed to exclude other rights. . . ." However, what is also stated in this agreement is that the contractor can have one person who will be outside of IWA membership. That one person, furthermore, will have to pay the equivalent of all the union dues and fees and so on to the IWA. But I guess he does get to have one management person regardless of the size of the crew.

After that long preamble, let me ask this: how will New Forest Opportunities Ltd., through its collective agreement, realize the statement that's made in this New Forest Opportunities handout that both union and non-union workers will share in the benefits which flow from the collective agreement? Can the minister tell me that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's simple. The benefits package, the regularization of pay, will go to anyone who's working on the project, whether they come from a union background or not. Clearly the member is opposed to unionization -- it's that simple.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it sure sounds like it. Not too long ago, he was arguing that we weren't working at employing displaced IWA workers. That's who is in the woods and in the mills, and we have to have a mechanism to do that. They want to do it and have some regularization of, and some continuity with, the benefits. If we didn't provide for this, I'm sure the member might think about standing up there and defending people who had to go from a job with benefits to a job without benefits. Well, we're way ahead of you. We're saying that the benefits are there for everybody, whether you come from a union background or not. Whether you're a member of the union on that project or not, you can qualify for the benefits.

G. Abbott: The minister is absolutely wrong if he's suggesting that I or anyone else here is opposed to unionization. Unionization, as I said at the outset, is a democratic right, a fundamental right. If people choose, for their own reasons, to unionize, that's just fine. What I am absolutely and utterly opposed to is the forced unionization of an entire sector by a government that's completely preoccupied with that. This is bogus; this is wrong. It's fundamentally wrong that people are forced to unionize whether they want to or not. There is no way, under the terms of this agreement, that they can do anything other than that. It's totally nonsensical that this minister stands up and tells me that it benefits both union and non-union. If they come from that background, somehow they benefit from it. This agreement forces unionization, and that's fundamentally wrong. If people want to unionize, that's their right. If they're forced to unionize, that's wrong. This is a Cuban labour model; it's absurd. It's fundamentally at odds with our rights in British Columbia. I ask the minister to respond to that.

[11:45]

[ Page 8706 ]

G. Abbott: If the purpose here is to extend benefits to people, that could be done. If somebody says to New Forest Opportunities: "I'm philosophically opposed to unionization for religious, moral, cultural" -- or, God knows, any -- "reasons; I'm opposed to being forced to be part of the union if I don't want to. . . ." What this government is saying is that whether you want to be a union member or not, you're going to be -- because you have no choice. If I want to work on an FRBC-funded project on the coast of British Columbia, I have to be a union member; that's clear. If I'm opposed to it, what am I going to do? What are you going to provide in terms of exemptions? We've been talking a little bit about some of the philosophical objections which, obviously, a number of Indian bands have with respect to being forced into this model. If I'm opposed to unionization but I want to work on a FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture project, am I going to be exempted as well? Or am I going to have my fundamental right not to join a union be offended, in order that I can access an FRBC-funded project?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would go back to the member and say that industry agreed to a model -- the HCL model that we applied on the coast. They agreed to that. They're used to dealing with the unions. They know it's a convenient way to deal with some of the problems, and they know and recognize that there should be a fair-wage and benefits structure. The only way to get that is to come to some agreement on what's fair. How do you agree to that? You have some kind of a negotiation. That's how you agree on what's fair.

G. Abbott: Where does the silviculture industry fit into that? They sure as heck were not happy with this. The Western Silvicultural Contractors Association was fundamentally opposed to what's going on here -- and they still are. The fact of the matter is that what's going to happen here is that an entire industry is going to be disrupted. Lots of existing silviculture workers are going to be dislocated as a consequence of this move.

The minister has talked about fairness to union and non-union. I understand that in the Pacific region in 1998, we're looking at a target of around 8,000 hectares of treated forest land for spacing, pruning, brushing -- that sort of stuff. I understand that about 4,000 of those 8,000 hectares are being committed to direct awards to IWA and community partnerships. In other words, 50 percent of the multi-year work -- the 8,000 hectares -- is going to exclude the traditional silviculture workforce from that possibility. Further, I understand that about 1,100 of the 8,000 hectares are being committed to Port Alberni. The minister can tell me that.

What's going to happen here is that half of those 8,000 hectares is going to be lost at the outset to the partnerships with the IWA and the communities. The other half is going to have the NFO model applied to it, so that there's going to be no work for the non-union silviculture contractors and workers around the province. How does this all fit together? How is this fair to people who fundamentally feel that they want to be non-union and enjoy that freedom? What's in it for them here? How is this in any way fair to those workers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that the only crews that are exempted are existing first nations crews. Those are the only ones that are exempted. If the member wants to ask further questions, I'd be happy to answer.

G. Abbott: Let's explore the native exemption for a moment. We've raised this issue in the House on a couple of occasions in question period. The first issue we raised was about the Lillooet River watershed society. The minister advised at that time that an exemption had been granted by the ministry or by Forest Renewal B.C., or whoever -- maybe it was both -- to the watershed society to proceed with their project without the NFO model being imposed. Subsequent to that, in the discussions we had with the Lillooet River Watershed Society, there seemed to be some doubt as to what had actually been exempted. Now, I gather that funds were released for the planting of whips and so on, and presumably that's exempt from the NFO model, anyway. But where have we gone since then?

The other issue we raised more recently. Another Indian band on Vancouver Island was fundamentally offended by the notion of NFO being imposed as well. The minister indicated at that time that some exemption would be provided for first nations who were opposed to this. Can the minister outline for me what the policy of the government or Forest Renewal B.C. is with respect to first nations who may not wish to participate in this particular Cuban labour model of employment on the coast?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The policy that NFO and FRBC are working with is that if there is a biological window, then we have to exempt in order to expedite the program. We may have to make an exemption to get the work done in this season. There is an exemption policy under the collective agreement, and we are in the process of discussing the rationale for the exemptions with some of those groups, particularly the first nations. With respect to those particular projects, it's my understanding that there have been ongoing meetings. There hasn't been resolution yet to their concerns, and the discussions are ongoing.

We expect there may be some bumps along the way in getting this model up and going. The opposition mightily criticized the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, and if you ask anybody on the Island, it's very popular. The idea of having local displaced workers -- and in this case, members of the primary partnership of Forest Renewal, of which first nations are some. . . . They need to be accommodated. They have unique circumstances, and that's being accommodated under the collective agreement.

G. Abbott: To conclude on the issue with respect to first nations and their potential exemption from the requirements of the collective agreement of New Forest Opportunities, we are clearly moving away from the advice which was tendered to the Lillooet River Watershed Society on April 17, 1998. This is to the watershed society from Mr. Beard, who is the president and general manager of NFO. This is a quote from the letter: "As an agreement holder or as a partner or contractor carrying out the work, if the Lillooet River Watershed Society receives Forest Renewal B.C. funding for land-based project work, work crews must be employed by New Forest, and those crews will work according to the New Forest-IWA collective agreement."

Am I to understand, then, that we now have some new flexibility in New Forest that would permit the first nations, at least, to apply for and possibly receive exemptions from the provisions of NFO?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

[ Page 8707 ]

G. Abbott: Then if we are talking about existing crews. . . . I think that in the case of the Lillooet River Watershed Society, they did have an existing crew; but I could certainly stand to be corrected on that. I know that in the other first nations case, we talked about there having been an existing crew. If we have existing crews in the community projects around the province -- whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- are they going to be able to apply for exemptions as well? Can that occur?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're speaking about the coast, and there are opportunities for unique circumstances to be argued. There is a committee that examines it, and they can make an application. There is no broad group of exemptions, other than the existing first nations crews. So the answer is whether other community projects. . . . Only in unique circumstances, and one unique circumstance might be a long-term project that's been going on for a long time and to which it would be disruptive to do it some other way.

G. Abbott: So there is a distinction being drawn by New Forest Opportunities, then, between aboriginal pre-existing programs and non-aboriginal pre-existing programs. Is there a distinction being drawn between those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's true, and there's a reason. We have a priority-hire policy, and first nations are one of the priorities for hiring, as are local displaced forest workers.

G. Abbott: I do understand that point about priority hire. I don't see where that fits into the distinction that I just talked about. Yes, they do have priority-hire. Why would it affect whether a community project was eligible for exemption versus, say, an aboriginal one? Overall, they are priority-hire. That's clear in the agreement, and it's clear in previous arrangements. How does it affect this case?

[12:00]

G. Abbott: But that doesn't address the question I posed, which was why a pre-existing community group, with its established workers, would be treated one way and aboriginal pre-existing crews would be treated another. Again, it has nothing to do with whether there is aboriginal priority-hire. That's a pre-existing arrangement that's been there for a while. What's the difference between those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any other community group -- and I'm not sure what he means. . . . Well, he would have to define the community and the group. If there's something unique, they can apply for an exemption. But there are unique circumstances around pre-existing first nations crews. They are a partner; they are specifically named as a priority placement requirement. We have some objectives there to do that, and that's in the spirit of the partnership around FRBC.

The other priority placement is local displaced forest workers. With the exception of where somebody may apply for some kind of unique circumstances, everybody is treated equally, if they're displaced forest workers under the definition, in having an opportunity to be employed in FRBC work.

G. Abbott: And if I am philosophically opposed to joining a union because of my religious beliefs or because of my political beliefs or for any other philosophical reason, can I get an exemption from doing that and still access work under New Forest Opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is commonly a condition of employment to belong to a union or to be someone who benefits from the collective agreement. There is a collective agreement out there. It has been worked out. We had advice from a number of parties to advise the employer on the agreement. Many of the provisions in the agreement are there because some of the parties had wanted them. Now we're trying to make the model work on the ground and meet the spirit of the employment objectives that NFO was created to achieve.

G. Abbott: I want to try to clarify a big distinction for the minister. If I want to work in the forest industry and I want to get a job at XYZ mill, I know when I go there that XYZ mill may be unionized under the IWA or it may not be. I make a choice. Yeah, if I'm going to work there and it's a unionized shop, I'm going to be a union member. XYZ mill is paying my wages, and I accept that.

What's fundamentally wrong with the imposition of the New Forest Opportunities model is that it's funded by Forest Renewal B.C. It's funded by dollars that I hope are public dollars, yet if I have some philosophical difficulty with joining a union, I don't have any choice but to do it. The government has decreed that if I'm going to get access to any job in enhanced forestry that is created by Forest Renewal B.C., I have to join a union.

In some circumstances -- for example, if I'm Seventh-Day Adventist or some religious persuasion which tells me that I can't submit to any secular authority in this world -- generally there is some mechanism whereby one can be exempted from the requirement to join the union. Does that exist here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The labour laws of the province apply, like any other collective agreement. The point of having a collective agreement is that it covers everybody in that group. Somebody will know, when they go to work for NFO, that it is a unionized work area. They'll know that. Right now they go, as you say, to M&B. At M&B they know if they work there that it's unionized. There's basic silviculture, there are probably private land silviculture crews and there's other work that they could go to if they choose not to work for a unionized group.

You argue it from both sides. When it serves your purpose, you say that industry paid this money. When it serves your purpose, you say that it's public money. We're saying that for the work created and funded by public money, people deserve the protection of not having to give up benefits if they were coming from an area of the workforce that had benefits and that everybody working there would be treated equally, regardless of the background they came from. The only way you can do that and agree on the terms of reference and get the benefits of controlling costs, getting training and having a common wage structure throughout the industry -- to allow people to move without having to take a minimum-wage job -- is to have some kind of collective agreement.

G. Abbott: The argument that is being advanced here is an entirely specious one. MacMillan Bloedel has numerous

[ Page 8708 ]

Here we've got New Forest Opportunities, and the government has made the decision. The government has made the decision that everybody who is going to access an FRBC-funded enhanced forestry job has to join the union. Apparently there is not even any provision for people to pay their union dues but at the same time have some relief from the compulsion to join the union. There's a huge difference here between people exercising their democratic right to unionize and being forced to unionize in order to access FRBC-funded enhanced forestry jobs.

There is a huge difference. On the one hand, we have the wages being paid by M&B; on the other hand, we have the wages being paid by Forest Renewal B.C. It's fundamentally wrong that a person can't access those jobs without succumbing to the forest unionization that's being imposed on them by this government.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm glad the member is making it clear that they would deunionize it, and they would not give protection and decent wages to people. They would have no way to do it. They'd say: "You're there in the market; low bidder takes it. Pay minimum wage. No protection, no good working conditions, no easy way to go from a non-pension job to bridging into a pension job."

We want to make it as easy as it can be to keep working families working in the industry with a fair chance for the public dollars. There's no priority given to one sector or the other. It's the forest sector as a whole. If you're displaced in that sector, you have an equal chance to make a decent family-supporting wage. The opposition would deny that opportunity. They say it time and time again. I know the working people in the forest industry are watching you; they're listening to what you're saying, and they'll remember that.

G. Abbott: I hope they are watching. I hope they are watching a government that is systematically stripping people of their rights in this province. One of the rights people have -- and it's fundamental -- is to voluntarily unionize if they choose. This government has taken away that right. They're saying: "Oh, we know better, as a government. We're the New Democratic Party; we know better. We're going to force people to unionize whether they want to or not. We say that the silviculture industry is fundamentally unjust." This is the whole nonsensical argument that this government repeatedly throws out there: that the silviculture industry has abused people; that it's a bad industry; that the market is a bad way to operate; that people aren't treated fairly just because they're not members of the unions.

Here we have a government that says: "Oh no, that's not good enough. We know better. We're Big Brother; we know better. People have to unionize. That's the way it has to be if they're going to be treated fairly in this society." That's exactly what the minister is saying. And you're right: we would make changes to NFO. You bet we would. This is an absurd model, this is a stupid model, and experience is going to prove it to be exactly that. This is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally wrong. I hope people are watching, because they will appreciate that this is a government that is absolutely destroying the forest industry in British Columbia.

You know, you can dress up the pig that is the NDP's forest policies. You can do all kinds of things with it, and you can pretend that all the things that this government has done have helped forest workers in this province. Well, everything this government has done has destroyed the industry in this province. You're constantly forcing people out of work as a result of your policies. You're pricing the industry out of the world markets because of some of the ridiculous policies adopted over time. This is another one. You tell us that the stumpage relief and the changes in the Forest Practices Code are all things that are going to make our industry competitive again. Yet you turn around and take the one aspect of the industry -- silviculture -- which has worked very efficiently, very productively, and you're going to wreck that too. The government is not going to be satisfied until it's wrecked everything associated with the forest industry in this province.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to pose a very simple question to the minister during his estimates relative to the topic that the member opposite seems to be getting so excited about.

The question is really directed to the minister. I wonder if he is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech made in Prince George some two weeks ago, made an absolute commitment to shut down an operating pulp mill in this province and throw all of its employees out of work. I wonder if the minister might have some comment, given the hectoring of members opposite with respect to the issue of jobs in forestry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I certainly do. I can say that if that party were ever government -- God forbid -- and shut down that pulp mill in Prince Rupert, those employees would be glad that there would be work funded by FRBC that they could move to and take some of their benefits -- and not have to be out on the street and give up everything they've worked for, for years and years.

It's clear that the other side of the House would deny people working on enhanced silviculture. . . . They'd pretend that it's all silviculture. They keep saying that, trying to scare people into. . . .

G. Abbott: I've been saying "enhanced" all day.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, but you slipped up. You would like people to believe that it's all silviculture. The truth of the matter is that people working on enhanced silviculture and land-based programs for Forest Renewal, which is government-funded, have the advantage of having benefits and a known wage rate -- some stabilization. In fact, Dirk Brinkman, who represents the industry, said that one of the benefits of the collective agreement is stability in wage rates, stability in benefits.

G. Abbott: I'm glad to yield the floor to the little lovefest across the way. If the minister of defence has any more fluffballs he wants to throw at the Forests minister, I'd gladly yield the floor to him.

[12:15]

G. Abbott: We'll be dealing with the issue of Skeena Cellulose in due course. We'll be doing a very thorough and

[ Page 8709 ]

What I want to address next are the concerns -- and I think they're well-founded concerns -- around how to bid an FRBC contract that is bound by the conditions of NFO. Let me make the case this way. Let's say that I am a contractor, ABC contractor. I have a work crew of 20. We've done jobs over the past several years, and I know what the productivity, efficiency and level of training of those workers is. When I bid a contract, whether it's for so many hectares of spacing, thinning, pruning or whatever -- or some combination of that -- I know what to expect from the workforce of 20 that I've assembled. I can bid in an accurate way, based on what I know they're going to be able to achieve on that site. How is it going to cost anything other than more. . . ? If I'm ABC contractor, I'm looking at the same job, but I'm looking at having to lay off ten of my workers, because that's a compulsory thing under the terms of the collective agreement.

Actually, I may have to lay off all of them. Unless they are prepared to join the IWA, I'm going to have to lay them all off. That's fundamental here, and we've explored that sufficiently, I hope. But I'm going of have to lay off at least half of them. I can keep the first ten, I guess, if they join NFO. Beyond that ten, I have to -- as I recall -- take on six trainees and four name-hires out of the NFO hiring hall. I think that's the breakdown. In any event, it's going to introduce a very considerable element of doubt into my contracting. How can I bid -- not knowing the level of productivity, energy, training and their ability to produce -- on the same basis as with my crew of 20? How can it not do anything but make our silviculture industry and the conduct of those contracts anything other than less efficient and less productive?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that the Price Waterhouse work which costed the collective agreement said it was cost-effective, that what it does for the industry is say: "These are the standards, these are the rates, and everybody has to pay them." By the way, there's 24 to 27 percent turnover in the industry and in the crews anyway, according to the studies made by the industry itself. That particular contractor might have two contracts and put ten on each. There are many ways that this can play out.

I won't deny the fact that we are saying to people from other parts of the forest industry: "You have an opportunity to be trained, to become productive and to contribute in a cost-effective way to the work that needs to be done. If you don't meet 85 percent of productivity, which is within the range of what happens on these crews, you will be dismissed eventually." There is a progressive plan to allow people a fair chance to get trained, to become productive. These are provisions that were put in there on the request of industry. We agreed; we want to see cost-effective projects.

G. Abbott: Let me try to put a bit more of a human face on this issue. I recently spoke on the phone to a long-established contractor on the coast, who posed the dilemma that he faced in this way. There was an FRBC contract. It involved roughly 20 employees -- in the range of 15 to 20 employees, as I recall. He would be flying those employees into the site to do the project. His big concern was that, yeah, he knew the productivity level and so on of his existing crew, and he would be taking at least half of them from people he knew, but there was going to be a significant portion of his crew about whom he had no idea, before he bore the expense of flying them into the project and setting them up and so on, about whether they understood the rigours that they were going to be facing as silviculture workers. He had no idea of their energy level, their efficiency level or their productivity level, yet he was going to be facing a very considerable cost in moving those workers into place.

This, again, is one of the reasons why we're going to see costs driven up. Don't keep citing this study. I haven't met anybody yet who believes the figures contained in there. I think that over time, it's going to be proven bogus.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member should talk to some of the CEOs of the company. They reviewed this study and accepted it. They're the employers.

Under the collective agreement, 70 percent of the employees will be fully trained, so he's going in with a 70-percent crew. What did that person do before? He has always taken people in, and he didn't know about up to 30 percent of the people. What did he do then? If they're not productive after a certain period of time, then they're let go.

This is not a guarantee of a job at low productivity. There are some standards in there, and there are incentives in the contract for people to get above 85 percent productivity. This employer is in virtually the same situation. He has an opportunity to name-hire a number of people, and the industry is going to work with approximately the same attrition rate as it did before.

G. Abbott: The big difference -- and I had hoped that the minister would have identified it by now, after our extensive discussion of this -- is that in the past, this contractor could interview people, talk to them about what they knew, what they could offer his crew, what their experience and training was, what kind of work they'd been doing, whether they were prepared to accept the rigours of the job and so on. That's the way it had been done in the past. I guess that's kind of old-fashioned now. Now we have to have an agency that's going to tell us who's suited. His opportunity to have a look at the people and make an informed judgment about who he should risk flying in there and who he shouldn't has been taken away from him.

I guess we run head-on into a philosophical difference between ourselves on this. We are hearing from the government: "Yeah, we know better, and we're going to do it that way." That's fine. The minister may have some comment with respect to that. I also want to ask here about the productivity provisions in the contract itself. The minister has noted the 85 percent provision. I understand and appreciate that if a worker does not achieve 85 percent of the target productivity level, they could be let go. Regrettably, in the case where there is considerable expense in moving people in and out of projects, that's going to possibly be an additional cost burden to the contractor and may affect his ability to do a contract.

But laying that aside, I want to talk about the target productivity provisions contained in the contract as well. I want the minister, in conjunction with staff there, if we could, to go to page 18 of the collective agreement. Actually, I'll go to the start of subsection (d):

"For each project, block within a project or part of a block, a target productivity required to earn the day rates described in paragraph (a) above shall be established as follows. . . .

"(ii) if the average productivity of qualified employees working on a block or part of a block is, for the first two weeks of the block, or part of the block, less than the target productivity set under subparagraph (i), the target productivity may be adjusted by the contractor;

[ Page 8710 ]

"(iv) any downward adjustment to the target productivity made pursuant to subparagraph (ii) or (iii) shall be made retroactive to the beginning of the project."

Can the minister advise whether the 85 percent productivity measure may in fact, retroactive to the beginning of the project, end up being something less than 85 percent?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that this particular provision was put forward by the silviculture contractors as a suggestion to protect the workers so there were not unrealistic productivity requirements placed. There's an opportunity to adjust productivity.

G. Abbott: That's interesting, because the particular concern around this section was in fact raised to me by more than one silviculture contractor. The concern is that under the provisions of this, if after two weeks it's found, for example, that the productivity is 25 percent less than the target productivity, then the target productivity is simply revised downward by 25 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The figure there, I'm told, is to measure the productivity of the qualified people; they set the standard. Half of those people are picked by the employer. That's the control. They have to know and set appropriate productivity rates, and they're doing it based on people who are already trained and who probably worked for that employer before.

G. Abbott: That may or may not be true, depending on the circumstances and who happens to be working on the job. The interesting thing about this particular section, subsection (d), is that it pretty much makes it impossible not to achieve productivity targets. How could you not achieve a productivity target when if it's found to be too high after two weeks -- or after eight weeks or after the completion of the project -- one simply adjusts it downward? How can one possibly ever not achieve a productivity target if it can move up and down with the level of productivity?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're forgetting that the price is fixed. He'd be cutting his own throat to reduce the productivity requirement unnecessarily.

G. Abbott: No, the contractor will not want to reduce the productivity; there is no question about that. It seems to me, though, that this provision in the contract has been set up to ensure that the NFO approach never fails. That seems to me to be the essence of this one.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if there are parts of this collective agreement that aren't working, we've got Dan Johnston, who's the mediator, and he can come in and assist in fine-tuning the agreement to make it work for both parties.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise, with respect to the 85 percent productivity measure. . . ? If someone doesn't perform to the 85 percent level, they can be let go or fired or whatever term we want to give it. If 85 percent is the measure, does that measure also vary with the target productivity in subsection (d)?

[12:30]

G. Abbott: On the issue of putting New Forest Opportunities into action, can the minister advise whether this model is now in place and whether it is working? Are there people now employed on FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture projects who came through this hiring-hall route and are now out on jobs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The projects are actually just starting now, so we don't have any sort of history yet.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, there's been a few, or perhaps many. . . . I don't know; staff and the minister can advise me here. I understand that there have been some contracts placed under the terms of the New Forest Opportunities approach. Can the minister advise how many there have been and in what location?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The multi-year agreements are signed, so the funding is in place. Companies are going through the process of bidding, and we don't know how many subcontracts have been signed or awarded. We don't have that information.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise, from the inception of the idea of creating New Forest Opportunities -- the addition of staff and so on -- what the cost is of New Forest Opportunities? What is the cost of administering New Forest Opportunities? What is the cost of the model that has been put in place to achieve the goals associated with this organization?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The cost of administering the client services, which includes the administration of training and so on, is expected to be $2.2 million, and FRBC's investment in land-based activities in the Pacific region is $94.4 million. So the cost of NFO is a little over 2 percent of the investment.

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline for me the personnel structure associated with New Forest Opportunities from. . . ? It's a president, I think, who directs the organization. Could the minister provide me with a capsule summary of the organizational structure associated with New Forest Opportunities and the key personnel?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The basic structure is that there are four senior people in the management group, and then there are nine clerical and assessment staff. We're blending in the forest worker transition program, so we're taking two programs and blending them into one, to get the administrative efficiencies. New Forests currently has 13 staff. The forest worker transition program has 40.

G. Abbott: New Forest Opportunities recently released a request for expression of interest for prequalification of instructors for the job readiness training program. I presume that they are looking for instructors to train people for the different silviculture mechanisms that are available. Could the minister advise what the call for instructors was about? Is it as I have suggested? How many have been hired, and so on, to this point in time?

[ Page 8711 ]

G. Abbott: Could the minister answer the following questions? How many workers have completed the work readiness training? How many personnel have been engaged to provide the work readiness training? How many have completed it and been registered with New Forest Opportunities? And of those registered, how many have been placed in employment to date?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forty people have gone through the job readiness training, in four sessions. NFO has 400 to 500 people who are registered. I don't have the exact number here with me. Approximately 100 people have been placed on projects, and as I said earlier, a lot of the projects are being advertised and tendered right now.

R. Coleman: Just going back to some descriptions relative to New Forest Opportunities, we now have 40 people trained and 400 to 500 people on the list. Do those 400 to 500 people that have registered with New Forest Opportunities require training?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have those details here. Some of them may and some of them may not. You're looking for a level of detail that should be raised during committee discussions.

R. Coleman: It's amazing. Every time I ask a question of the minister, I get told that the question should be raised in committee discussions. Let's go back to the. . . . We're not talking about the business plan; we're talking here about New Forest Opportunities. There are a number of questions on New Forest Opportunities.

New Forest Opportunities has a goal to place 1,500 to 2,000 in the first year on a priority basis, to give them training where needed and to help ensure that their jobs are stable and continuing, and that's a lofty goal. You have 40 people trained, you have 400 to 500 people registered, and you have 100 placed. It is now June. I guess the first question would be: how much of the work that is relative to what we're discussing is seasonal work? And in what period of time do you see that work taking place? Do you see it taking place prior to the end of August, the end of September, or October?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The biggest chunk of the work is spacing, and that's traditionally done in the fall. For the watershed work the window is now, and in the next few weeks you will see those jobs starting up.

R. Coleman: Does New Forest Opportunities have any concerns about reaching its goal of 1,500 to 2,000 workers getting employment in the first year on a priority basis? A second question relative to that is: have the minister and FRBC done any calculations as to whether any people that have been long standing employees in reforestation with the silviculture contractors are actually going to be displaced as a result of this agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that 80 percent of the contracts are in place. It is now the responsibility of employers to get people to work. The money is out the door, and Forest Renewal's responsibility is to sign the contracts. That number is based on the investment plan, and I can't tell you if there are going to be people displaced who work for some of these employers or not. If they are, they certainly qualify for work on New Forest projects. The name-hire provision should see the majority of the people named by the employer. This is going to go by averages; 70 percent of the people will have some training, and there's a 30 percent attrition rate in the industry.

R. Coleman: With 85 percent of the contracts in place, are there enough people registered in NFO? When we have 40 trained, 400 to 500 registered and 100 placed, are there enough people registered in NFO to meet the needs of 80 percent of the contracts?

[12:45]

R. Coleman: Could the minister tell me. . . ? You have a company that gets a contract, and some are name-hire and some come from the New Forest Opportunities hiring hall -- for lack of a better description -- and you have 400 to 500 people registered there. The number that's quoted in the information provided to me from New Forest Opportunities through FRBC is 1,500 to 2,000 workers in the first year on a priority basis. In that 1,500 to 2,000 workers per year, are you also including the existing silviculture workers who come in and work for NFO as part of the calculation? Or are you actually finding 1,500 jobs for displaced forest workers plus the people who are on the list of companies as far as name-hire is concerned?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Fifteen hundred is the total number of people who will be placed on NFO projects.

R. Coleman: So the 1,500. . . . This says 1,500 to 2,000. Let's leave it at 1,500. So the people placed on NFO projects could be already working for a silviculture contractor by name-hire, or they could be displaced forest workers, be it IWA or non-IWA, who've come to work for NFO and are placed in jobs as a result of the company getting a contract through FRBC, for whatever. It could be watershed restoration or whatever the case may be.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It includes both.

R. Coleman: Could the minister then tell me how, when you have one group of people who are already working for the contractors through name-hire. . . ? They would be working for that contractor nevertheless, whether or not he got the contract in the forest industry. Then you have the people who are displaced forest workers that are coming on.

[ Page 8712 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The jobs and timber accord jobs are funded by FRBC; they are jobs that wouldn't be there if we didn't have FRBC. FRBC and the jobs and timber accord are designed to facilitate placing displaced forest workers, whatever the source, on longer-term jobs. Another part of the jobs and timber accord is the multi-year agreement. So we're talking about long-term jobs under Forest Renewal's subsidiary, New Forest. We expect New Forest and FRBC collectively to move toward long-term jobs under multi-year agreements, and the number of those jobs that we're targeting is 5,000.

R. Coleman: Taking that back a step, has Forest Renewal or the ministry done a cost-benefit analysis that would show how many jobs would have remained in the forest industry if less money had been taken out for FRBC? The companies lost X number of dollars last year -- I think it was $190 million or $200 million the year before -- in the forest industry. How many jobs that actually were eliminated from the forest industry as a result of the superstumpage are we now replacing with the money that we took from the forest industry? Have we done an analysis of how many jobs the companies would have been able to retain if their losses hadn't been so high because their costs were so high?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the Forest Renewal dollars weren't there, companies wouldn't be spending it on enhanced forestry. One of the objectives of Forest Renewal is to spend money on enhanced forestry. So there are jobs in enhanced forestry. That's what's been targeted by the Forest Renewal program.

R. Coleman: If, at the time of deciding on the stumpage issue, we had given different priorities to the company. . . . Did anybody do a study or take a look at what would have happened if we had left the money in the pockets of the companies and given them a mandate to do certain things relative to enhanced forestry? How would that have affected the industry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member doesn't remember the exact genesis of Forest Renewal. There was a Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, on which the sectors of the forest industry sat with government over a period of time, and they worked on strategies for the renewal of the forest sector. One of the programs that came out of that was Forest Renewal.

So the partners of Forest Renewal came to some agreement through the forest sector strategy to put stumpage money into this program in order to ease the transition, to renew the forest -- all the things that the member was mentioning and that some people don't remember was the original purpose. To renew the forest, to get into transition training and value-added -- all those were things that Forest Renewal was designed to create. Before we had New Forest in place -- before we had the timber jobs -- there was money being spent on enhanced silviculture and short-term jobs, short-term contracts, whatever. The whole objective -- there's no magic here -- was to get longer-term jobs and multi-year agreements. Industry agreed that we should go to multi-year agreements, to get people trained and to give equal opportunity to all displaced forests workers to get one of these longer-term jobs. That's the objective. There's no magic; it's all been said before. It's exactly what was intended.

R. Coleman: Noting the time, I guess we're going to have to continue this on Monday.

Would the minister not also agree that in addition to that momentum that took place through the Forest Renewal Act, there was also another factor that affected the reason we went to Forest Renewal and the reason we changed the stumpage system back then? That would be that the tariffs were threatened by the jobs-and-timber-accord issues back then, relative to how we were collecting money. We were actually forced, in some ways, to do some of this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's no doubt about it. The history is that the U.S. was putting a surcharge on wood going into the United States. So what do we do with this situation? How can we turn this bad situation into something better? Knowing what they knew at the time, projecting what companies projected -- the value of timber, what might be generated. . . . Knowing what we knew back in '94-95, we based a program on it. There's no question that the stumpage would have been going basically to the U.S. It was to get those dollars back here into British Columbia, to renew the forest industry.

Noting the time, I'd like to move that the committee, rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Just before I put that motion, the member for Shuswap wants to speak.

G. Abbott: Thank you. We're very happily going to support the motion that has been put forward by the minister, but just in terms of the efficient conduct of these estimates, if the minister could provide the following for Monday. . . . I expect that the same staff will be here on Monday. We'll finish up the discussions around FRBC and NFO and proceed to the jobs-and-timber-accord aspects, particularly those that relate to Forest Renewal B.C. So in the interests of efficiency, if the following could be provided by the minister -- and I believe he's already committed to do this, or has indicated that it would be possible to do it. . . . If we could get the target treatment areas for the different silviculture prescriptions that we talked about -- spacing, pruning and so on -- by interior and by coast, so I have some notion of the objectives for the current fiscal year. . . .

One of the first things we discussed in the process was the jobs accord advocate, and the minister undertook to provide me with some details around the appointment of the jobs accord advocate. I expect that it would be appropriate for us to deal with that in conjunction with FRBC.

As well, if the minister could provide written responses to the questions that were posed by the members for Peace River North and for Cariboo South, surrounding the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch -- there were some questions

[ Page 8713 ]

So if the minister could provide those, that would be excellent and will get us off to a good start on Monday.

The Chair: Now I will put that non-debatable motion.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

The Speaker: Before I call on the Government House Leader to make a comment, I'd like to give the members some information. I'd like to take a moment to inform members that former MLA Stanley John Squire passed away in Nanaimo on Sunday, June 7. John was a native son of Nanaimo, and he represented the riding of Alberni from 1952 to 1966 as a CCF and NDP member. He was a charter member of Local 185 of the IWA in Port Alberni and a founding member of the Alberni District Credit Union. He was also active in municipal politics in Port Alberni. John leaves his wife of 61 years, Patricia, and their children Carol, Gail, Jim and Patrick, and numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

On behalf of all members, I will send a note of condolence to his wife and the family.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

C. Hansen: Last night we were talking about the variance that was requested by the restaurant industry. I'm just wondering if the minister has any more information. I appreciate that there hasn't been a lot of time to dig into this matter, but we were interested in why there was a change in policy between September 18 and October 10.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I do have some information, and I will read it into the record. Before doing so, let me just advise the member from Quilchena that there were two other requests made yesterday for specific information. We gave an undertaking that we would endeavour to get that information to the members as quickly as possible. One concerned a 1-800 line, and the other concerned employment standards branch statistics. We're still trying to get that information for the member. Whether we'll be able to do it in the next hour or so, I don't know, but we will endeavour to. Failing that, we'll certainly pass it on as quickly as we can.

To the specific question regarding Jill Walker and the variance that the member refers to, let me make the following statement for the record. The previous director was appointed director of employment standards on January 25, 1994. She is, and was, a career public servant. The member made reference to two letters to Mr. Geoffrey Howes, one dated September 18, 1997, and another dated October 19, 1997, regarding the director's decision to grant variances to the four-hour minimum call-out in certain circumstances.

The reason the decision was reversed is that the director felt that there had not been sufficient consultation with stakeholders, particularly restaurant workers and the health care sector. In order to ensure that there was a better mechanism for consultation on important matters of interpretation and policy, the director immediately established thereupon an advisory committee with representatives from small and large businesses and from organized labour. The issue of variances has been referred to that committee.

The member asked when she left her position. Ms. Walker left her position as director on April 13, 1998. She also asked for a new assignment within the public service, and the ministry made every effort to accommodate her request. She initially accepted a temporary position with the office of the comptroller general before taking a permanent position as deputy superintendent of motor vehicles. The previous director asked to be reassigned for personal reasons, and she was not subject to any political pressure.

I recognize that this is about personal concerns and personnel matters, and therefore I am loath to say more about it. I will let my statement stand for itself and as the only comment I am prepared to make about this matter. But I hope that information is helpful to the members opposite.

C. Hansen: Certainly I don't want to dwell on the personnel side of it. I accept the minister's statement, and I think there were some in various industries that were jumping to some conclusions in terms of the timing of Ms. Walker's transfer. But I accept the minister's statement.

I do, however, want to pursue the consultative committee that's been set up to look at these issues. It's my understanding that this request for the variance actually came forward both from the restaurant industry. . . . These discussions at the time involved representatives of the Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 40. I think there was that kind of cooperation, obviously, between employer reps and employee reps prior to Ms. Walker indicating in her letter that there was favourable consideration of a variance.

I'm just wondering where that particular request for a variance may be, now that it has been referred to this committee subsequent to these letters.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have any up-to-date information on where the committee's deliberations are. I understand that the committee does meet on a more or less regular basis. We will ensure that that item is on the agenda -- or we will

[ Page 8714 ]

C. Hansen: I'm trying to think back to the minister's comments about the way this committee was established. I don't think he indicated who serves on this committee. Is there any more information that he has in terms of the structure of the committee, the mandate, how often it meets and the kinds of issues that are before it now, as opposed to the kinds of issues that are, say, before the high-tech review panel?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the committee is comprised of representatives from three organizations: one, the B.C. Federation of Labour; two, the Coalition of. . .

C. Hansen: B.C. Businesses.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, Ms. Sanatani's group. I'm sorry; I forget the initials. There's the B.C. Business Council, as well -- and of course, representatives of the employment standards branch.

C. Hansen: In the minister's opening comments last year at estimates, he made reference to the Employment Standards Tribunal holding public hearings, specifically to bring in recommendations as to how the act and the regulations should apply to specific classes of workers. My understanding is that the public hearings that do take place today happen under the auspices of the tribunal, in certain circumstances. I'm just wondering if the minister could elaborate on that process and on what kinds of things may be the subject of public hearings.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that in the act, under section 109, there is a provision for formal consultation. That process is normally used for, essentially, adjudication purposes. The wisdom, I gather, is that it is really not suitable or workable for consultation and negotiation kinds of activities. Thus there is another mechanism set up -- namely, the sectoral negotiation. Those are the two mechanisms, in effect.

C. Hansen: If I understand the minister right, matters of a more technical nature go to the public hearings under the tribunal or under section 109, as opposed to policy decisions that may be under the auspices of the employment standards branch itself. Could the minister clarify that?

Actually, if I can just continue in my thought there, last night we were talking about the logging-truck drivers in Quesnel. I know there were public hearings held by the tribunal at that time. Is that an example of the kind of thing that would happen under the section 109 authority?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am, perhaps, remiss. I probably should have given a short statement on exactly how the tribunal process is designed, and that may answer the question. As the member well knows, the Employment Standards Tribunal is an independent body that was established under section 109 of the act to review applications for exclusion. It makes recommendations to cabinet after review of submissions by interested parties. I am also advised, however, that the process used by the tribunal does not lend itself to broader consultations or to negotiated solutions. Government has therefore requested that the ministry engage in these negotiations to make recommendations to cabinet to increase the flexibility provided to employers under employment standards, and at the same time, of course, protect employees' rights.

[11:15]

My understanding is that the process started with the employment standards branch. They were looking at the working conditions that child actors were subjected to or were being employed under, and a consultative process took place. I have some real concerns that the consultative process did not include significant input from parents from the start of that process. I appreciate that there was a parent who was brought into the process part way through it, and I have no doubt that it's one of those things that, if we could start that whole process over again, the ministry would be approaching a little bit differently so as not to generate some of the anxiety that was generated on the part of parents.

The minister may wish to respond to that. I just wanted to put it on the record that I felt that the process was flawed in that the consultation included all of the industry types -- it included the various unions that were involved; it included the talent agents and the producers and the company reps; it included the ministry reps -- but lacking in this whole process was a significant involvement by parents. I think that was a shortcoming of the process. What came out of it was some employment standards for the industry which were largely distrusted by the time they saw the light of day and which were the subject of a lot of critical analysis. In the end, the same kinds of employment standards could have resulted through a process that was more inclusive. The minister may wish to comment on that, and I would certainly welcome that.

In particular, I have real concerns about where this process went in terms of the 25 percent withholding that went to the public trustee. My information-gathering on this leads me to believe that the idea of withholding a portion of the children's income was something that came out of the Ministry of Labour's examination of this industry. It then went to the public trustee's office, which is the only agency that government has to deal with it. Then the public trustee took it and ran with it and seems to have been sort of independent of any other kinds of inputs. I'm wondering what involvement the ministry has or could have with regard to looking at that 25 percent withholding. I think it's an area that has certainly caused a lot of frustration and continues to be the cause of a lot of anger on the part of the parents of child actors in this province. I'd welcome the minister's comments.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't want to take up too much time answering, but I think the member poses fair questions, and I will try to respond to them. First of all, whether the process was sufficiently broad and consultative is moot. I think the member raises a legitimate concern: Perhaps parents weren't given sufficient attention in that process. I don't know that. What I do recognize, however, is that it would be awfully difficult, I guess, to find out who could represent parents. Is there a child-actors' parents association or something?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, there may be now -- exactly. But as you say, if we were doing it over, we might do it differently. I can't say much about that consultation except that I suspect people did try very hard to do it well.

The trust fund issues. . . . First of all, two points should be noted, just to put it in a context. Number one, the Public

[ Page 8715 ]

I would also note that contrary to some of the mythologies, this isn't a government money grab. The government never gets to use that money.

Second, the assumption is that parents can indeed get a better rate of return through this, simply because they have the benefit of having a larger pool of capital to work with, as opposed to individual parents investing their little bits.

What else? I think that probably answers the main concerns. Our conclusion effectively is that it's a compromise, obviously, between the legitimate rights of parents and children -- but at the same time protecting children. Sadly, it is true that because somebody is a parent, it is not necessarily a guarantee. . . . As we know from the horrible stories of child abuse, which seem sometimes of epidemic proportions in this province, there are a lot of parents who are parents only in name, and they don't take on that trust responsibility with their own children. The assumption we make, just as our counterparts in California do, is that the government has some obligation to protect those children against possible exploitation. We think the 25 percent figure is a reasonable compromise.

C. Hansen: This is an issue that I raised with the Attorney General during the Attorney General estimates. I don't think the problem lies with the Ministry of Labour, although I know that's where the process initiated. The problem lies with the role that the public trustee's office has assumed in this particular case. My understanding is that there is no other broad class of worker in this province that has been brought under the control of the public trustee in this case. The public trustee's office has been set up for all the right reasons, and that's to administer funds for those who are incapable of administering them themselves or who do not have a family network to assist them in administering their funds.

If we have a case where somebody's injured in a car accident and they are found to be unfit to administer their own affairs, then the award from ICBC can go to the public trustee, and the public trustee will administer that case. I've certainly had some of those come to my constituency office. Those, each in their individual right, are frustrating cases, and I sympathize with what the public trustee's office must have to deal with in terms of the pressures.

But what we have done here is taken an entire class of individuals in British Columbia, and we have said that all individuals in that class, whether they have a responsible network or not, will be subject to this 25 percent withholding. I have a problem with that, because I think this is an area where we did not have a big problem for government to solve. Nobody can give me any information, when it comes to cases of abuse in British Columbia, when it comes to income. There's speculation that there may be one or two cases out there that nobody's able to discuss the details of because of confidentiality, and I'll accept that. But I don't think that for government to walk in and assume wholesale responsibility is solving the problem.

If we isolate the problem and find ways that government can solve the problem rather than coming in with blanket involvement, as the public trustee's office has done in this case. . . . That's the direction that I think this should have gone in. I'll be following this with the public trustee's office, because my assumption is that that's where the pressure point is at this point. I welcome your comments.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his comments, and I certainly appreciate the sincerity and the concern that animate those.

I would just note that the public trustee is not, of course, known to exactly be the paradigm exemplar of consultation. Part of the predicament is that given this role, there hasn't been the kind of communication and explanation that most of us would think ought to go with the job -- certainly this kind of job.

I'm happy to report that discussions our ministry has had with the public trustee have led to some conclusions -- namely, that the trustee's office have made it very clear that they are willing to be more forthcoming with information, to make themselves more available to explain their position and to correct misinformation and so forth. I'm also happy to tell the member that we are now working directly with the office of the public trustee to try to make it easier for parents to become trustees by court order. The member's quite right: there will obviously be certain circumstances when you do not need the state in loco parentis; rather, the family network could provide that service. So there ought then to be a mechanism that isn't impossible to activate in order to achieve that end.

I thank the member for his comments, and I think he's quite right in his conclusion that the next course of action is to go knocking on the door of the public trustee. I hope he will.

C. Hansen: Just to follow up on that, the public trustee's office has contacted me for that follow-up. I haven't had the opportunity yet, because of the session, to get together with them, but I will be pursuing that.

The system that's currently there -- the accommodation -- is quite complex. It involves court hearings and legal expenses on the part of parents, and it's not a good solution. I will be pursuing with the public trustee and with the Attorney General's office whether or not there may be some change in policy and, potentially, change to the act that administers the public trustee's office to deal with these kinds of situations.

I raise it in the context of the estimates because I'm anxious that the Ministry of Labour be sensitive to the problems that have come out of this particular circumstance. There may be other groups of workers in the future who may start down a similar road, and I just hope that that sensitivity would be there.

I would like to shift to the Labour Relations Board, if I may. Actually, before doing that, I have a small issue on pension standards that it may be better to raise at this point.

Last year in the minister's speech at the opening of estimates, he referred to a program that was going to begin to increase awareness of the importance of retirement income planning. It was going to be an initiative of the pension standards branch, and I wonder if the minister could update us on that.

[ Page 8716 ]

C. Hansen: If I can move on to the Labour Relations Board, I just want to start with a growing concern that. . . . I sense in the time that I have been Labour critic and in the consultations that I have done a growing concern about the perception of the neutrality of the Labour Relations Board. There are a lot of people in the employer community who are concerned that the jurisprudence that drives the LRB is shifting, over a period of time. Individuals can start pointing to specific decisions and sort of say: "Well, this one moved the envelope a little bit, and the another decision that was based on that decision moved it a little bit more." There's no one defining moment that you can point to and say: "Well, this is where there was a big shift in this month, because of this particular day, that sort of defines how this change took place." But there is this growing concern that, over time, the LRB is at risk of losing its reputation as a neutral body -- or court, if that's the right word -- to decide between the interests of the trade union movement and the interests of the employer community.

In the discussions I've had with people, they're usually very quick to say that whatever I do as a critic, please don't erode the reputation of the LRB, because it is vital to so much of what we're doing. If we are going to have successful administration of the Labour Relations Code in this province, it is absolutely essential to all concerned that we have both the neutrality of the LRB and the perception of neutrality of the LRB.

[11:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to begin by saying that I absolutely agree with the member: the neutrality of the LRB ought not to be in question. That serves nobody. I am committed in my way, as I'm sure he is, to do what can be done to ensure that that reputation isn't tarnished or blemished. I think that's our starting point.

Having been in this House a little longer than the member opposite, however, I want to just tell him a little story about the LRB that he may appreciate. To give us a little sense of historicity, as it were -- a context -- I participated in the Bill 19 debate. Bill 19, you recall, was the jihad of the day. That was when the government of the time came in and, apparently without the Labour minister's involvement, with a separate team in the Premier's Office writing the legislation, we got amendments to the Labour Code -- amendments that, frankly, set this province into a spiral. It was a tough, tough period to be in the House. One of the points that became very clearly evident in the course of that debate is that the new code was written in large measure based on an analysis of Labour Code decisions -- Labour Code decisions that had gone against business, quite frankly. There is a hundred pages of Hansard on this stuff, if the member is interested. They were Labour Code decisions that had gone against the so-called business interests, and the code was therefore rejigged to change that. If there were ever anything, it seems to me, that would put the people serving in the LRB in that horribly awkward position, that was it -- rather than anything done by LRB members. LRB members, remember, take an oath. The nature of being on the board is that you're there to adjudicate between the two sides, to find some kind of balance between the two sides. The structure of the board is such that we have equal numbers of business people and labour people. That's its function -- again, to ensure that neutrality.

The other point. . . . And I don't mean to be confrontative, but I have to tell the member that it seems to me that what has happened latterly to challenge the reputation of the LRB as a neutral body, and the primary reason why that challenge is perhaps perceived to be out there now, is because of the unfortunate thing the two representatives of the small business community did recently. That was to write a letter complaining about a decision that was apparently going to be made by the chair of the LRB, saying that it was in fact an inappropriate decision to be made.

That was their right; that's fine. But what they said in the process of that letter, unfortunately, was that those people were being replaced, apparently, as advocates for business on the board. . . . And that's not the job. Nobody is supposed to be on the board as an advocate for one side or the other. Their job, as the member quite correctly points out, is to be the neutral arbitrator/mediator between the two positions.

I agree with the member's starting point. It's absolutely crucial that both of us do whatever we can to try and ensure the neutrality and the perception of neutrality on the board, but I fear that that perception, alas, is alive and well -- on the part of people who, frankly, ought to know better -- that the role is somehow to advocate for one side or the other. I'm sorry that that happened, because I think it was just inappropriate. Indeed, I shall make that point at the first opportunity when I talk with Mr. Lampert or Ms. Sanatani. I think what they said was truly unfortunate and probably does more to call into question the neutrality of the board than anything else I can think of. I thank the member for raising the concern. I think it's an absolutely legitimate one.

C. Hansen: As I mentioned, I think the concern about this neutrality goes back long before that incident. In fact, if we go back to the Bill 44 debate last summer, a lot of the concern about Bill 44 -- or, I should say, some of the concern -- was with regard to the decisions that had to be made by the LRB in terms of how it would be implemented and interpreted. I was astounded by the number of individuals who read that from the point of view that they as business owners were going to get whacked because the LRB was obviously going to go in one direction as opposed to another direction.

This was not coming from the association leaders, such as the two you mentioned, and it wasn't coming from the labour lawyers; it was coming from the business owners and the people who are actually trying to manage companies on a day-to-day basis. I think this perception of neutrality is an issue that is of great concern.

[ Page 8717 ]

The minister said that you have the vice-chairs who come in and are supposed to approach this from an unbiased position, but I think that what's important is the perception that's there -- and the perception is based on where individual vice-chairs come from, not so much the oath that they had taken when they assumed the office.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that in scheduling cases, the board makes the decision whether the cases will be heard by a tribunal or by single-member panels. It was suggested to me, rather than being told to me directly, that the nature of the case would clearly determine whether the board -- again, made up of both business and labour -- would say, "This is fairly straightforward," or, "It's technical, so we don't have to worry about perceived bias, and therefore one person can do it," versus something that would obviously be potentially more contentious, and would therefore be a three-person tribunal.

I'm further advised that we don't know whether there is an increasing incidence of single-member panels, but we will endeavour to get that statistical evidence and share it with the member.

C. Hansen: I would appreciate that. Certainly if there is some historical perspective to those statistics. . . . If we could look at the number of cases have been dealt with by the LRB in, say, the last five years, with the number broken down by the numbers that have gone to single-member panels and tribunals. . . .

I would like to ask the minister about the section 3 committee. I note in reading section 3 of the code that it calls for a continuing review. I'm wondering what the minister's plans are for a section 3 committee from here on.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite right that there is some latitude given to the minister by the legislation. Of course, the question is: does continuing review mean that one does a checkup every six months or every year or whatever? That could get us into a great legal debate, I'm sure -- you know, "What does continuing review mean?" etc.

Let me just be very specific in my answer and say that the last gesture to deal with the obligations conferred by section 3 of the code led to the establishment of the panel of -- what? -- I think about five people: Jim Matkin, Miriam Gropper, Stan Lanyon, Vince Ready. . . . As the member also knows, that committee went through a pretty elaborate consultation process and has prepared an excellent report and a very balanced and well-modulated one, in my opinion -- although some may disagree. The report also has a number of recommendations attached, some of which are in fact recommendations for changes to the labour code legislation. We, the government, are still reviewing that report and have not yet decided precisely how and to what extent we are going to respond to the recommendations of the section 3 panel. That's the very specific answer.

The larger, generic question about whether we ought to have built in a constant, ongoing review of the panel is an interesting debate. It's analogous, of course, to section 7 in the Employment Standards Act. The old arguments traditionally are whether indeed you try and have an ongoing review, even though that will be costly and time-consuming and all that, or whether you're better to do a more major review maybe every five years. The same argument pertains to, say, WCB. I think the appropriate solution is somewhere between those two models. You don't want to leave it so long that wounds fester and sores develop and all of those things so you have a major problem when you finally get to dealing with it. By the same token, you don't want to go to the other extreme and find that you're imposing a huge extra cost and demand on your workers doing all that administrative and legislative review, instead of carrying out the ongoing work of their particular commission or body.

I hope that gives the member some clarification -- at least of my views on that subject.

C. Hansen: I share the minister's concern that we don't want to get into a costly process. But I just point out to the minister that in fact section 3 of the code does give the minister discretion as to whether to appoint the committee or not, in that it does say that the minister may appoint the committee, but from there on there's no discretion. From there on it says it's a continuing review, and it also says that there would be annual evaluation. So I just bring that to the minister's attention. At the same time, I certainly share his concern that we don't want to get into a costly process.

With that, I think we'll move on to some high-tech issues, and I'll let my colleagues lead.

J. Weisbeck: I want to preface my remarks by saying that I realize that this is a relatively new board and that's it really only been set up since November. Probably we can't make a really thorough analysis at this point, but I thought I'd like to get an opinion on where we think it's going. We've still got these responsibilities under two ministries, and this having been in place for seven months, I'd just like to have the minister's reaction as to how this is working out and whether or not he can foresee, in the near future or whatever, maybe putting it under the direction of one ministry.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question.

Let me introduce Kerry Jothen, who is the chief executive officer for the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission.

I will try to be brief, because I know our time is limited, but let me give a quick overview to answer the member's question. As members know, the act was brought into force by a regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on November 28, 1997. It flows from the recommendations of the minister's committee that was appointed by the former Minister of Education, Skills and Training and of Labour. The committee was comprised of representatives of business, labour, education, training-providers, government and the Provincial Apprenticeship Board.

[11:45]

[ Page 8718 ]

Finally, it's to develop a system of provincially recognized credentials that promote laddering -- that old education terminology that I know the member from Delta will appreciate -- portability, mobility, transferability and, above all, to make the best use of our human resources. The commission is comprised of 25 members, including the chair. It is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The commission membership consists of eight representatives from business, eight representatives from labour, four representing the public post-secondary education and training system, four representatives from government and the chair.

In terms of the success of the program thus far, I'm pleased to note that Dale Parker has been appointed chair and that Kerry Jothen has been appointed the CEO of the commission. Existing apprenticeship staff from the ministry were transferred to ITAC. We're excited about the concept; we think it's the right way to go. I think the primary problem has been -- surprise, surprise -- not enough resources to do what we want. I've met with ITAC people on a few occasions. They are excited; they want to make great things happen. They're concerned about all the things that they think we should be doing and whether we can in fact find the wherewithal to do so.

The member is quite right -- and I'll wrap up at this point because I'm going on much too long -- that we are finding our way in terms of the relationship and the interaction between the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Labour. Advanced Education has the lion's share of the budget; I can quote that number, if the member wishes. Advanced Education, Training and Technology is $44 million and a bit; Ministry of Labour is $25 million and a bit. So they have a larger chunk of it.

The relationship, I think, has been good, but eight months later we're obviously finding our way. I'm optimistic that we will do some great things. Certainly there is a need to act on all those points of the mandate that I referred to.

J. Weisbeck: You certainly answered a lot of other questions I was about to ask.

One of the mandates was to promote and encourage continuous skills upgrading, lifelong learning and certification. I guess what I'm seeing out there right now -- you know, talking to people out in the industry -- is that we see the lack of a fair amount of flexibility as far as access.

I had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with MacDonald Dettwiler. They actually have to train a lot of their people in-house, because they're finding that to give people time off work, etc., to continue training and upgrade their skills is very costly for business. So rather than being able to send their people off to universities and colleges or whatever to get these skills at night or on the weekends, they have to do it themselves. That is a concern of mine. Is this going to be addressed somehow? Could you respond to that, please?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to try not to give a long answer and take away other questions that the member might have.

I'm advised by the CEO of ITAC that a strategic plan has now been developed by the board, which clearly sets out the direction in which they propose to proceed. There is a board planning meeting, indeed, that's going to be held at the end of the month, I gather, which will review the strategic plan and will explore the need to set some very explicit directions in terms of how we go and to address any of the key challenges and things like the one the member refers to -- namely, flexibility and the tendency of institutions to become hidebound and set up barriers, rather than coordinate and work together. That is, I think, an excellent point to raise. I would dearly hope that the chair is hearing the member's comment and will want to take it under advisement.

Let me just share with the member the vision statement for ITAC that has just been given to me; I think it's worth reading into the record. ITAC's vision is: "An industry partnership of business, labour, education and training, and government that develops and oversees an inclusive industry training and apprenticeship system of the highest quality and which is responsive to industry needs and emerging labour market demand, and priorities for smooth transitions between learning and work" -- good words and, I think the member would agree with me, the right words. The issue now is how well we can fulfil the promise. I hope we will.

J. Weisbeck: That was another of my questions: how do we fulfil that need? I'm looking at the apprenticeship program. It's my understanding that they are based on three-year stints. I wonder whether we have to look at that from a different direction. You look at the need out there. I mean, we're saying now that most of us in our lifetimes are going to change our jobs six or seven times. We're talking now about upgrading skills training every couple of years. Who knows? As information comes at us so quickly, we're going to have to change a lot more quickly. So I wonder whether there isn't that sort of thought pattern -- that we may have to change our direction of thinking.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member raises a good question; I think they've all been good. The apprenticeship question is a tough one. The member, I think, has read fairly widely on this, as I've tried to. You know that there are divided opinions. There are some who say that this model of training is outmoded: "What the heck, there are new trades happening all the time, so you don't need that stuff." There are others who are saying: "Good Lord, if you ever walk down that track, we will get into a de-skilled industry. We'll find that nobody any longer knows how to do anything. Rather, it'll all be done by modules or construction models and stuff like that." So clearly we have to balance both those sets of needs.

The member's question, I think, has to do primarily with flexibility -- are we locked into an old model? -- and whether that old model really is the right one, the appropriate one. He referred to the fact that apprenticeships are lasting three years. Some indeed are longer in particular trades. Some, I suspect, would argue: "In this day and age" -- again, with the explosion of knowledge and everything -- "why are you still saying you can only have three years? Maybe you should

[ Page 8719 ]

This is a debate that I certainly heard in my teaching days at the college and university. Given this great knowledge explosion, why are we still pretending that you can master a subject in any way with a four-year degree? Shouldn't degrees be six years? Of course, the education profession loved that, because it meant more work for them, among other things.

But on the other hand, people say: "My God, learning is now different. You don't go and get filled up in four years; rather, it's lifelong. So what we ought to do is give you just the basics, and then you go out and learn for yourself and take courses and broaden," etc. The member is as familiar as I am with the dimensions and the complexity of the debate.

I'll just add one other little point, though. One of the things that clearly is going to happen -- and I think ITAC has already made some statements to this effect -- is that we need to look at new trades and new occupations and put together the kinds of training that will be appropriate for those. For example, aviation technology is one of those we're looking at, and the film industry. There's a legitimate and pretty heavy pressure on at the moment to say that those things should be apprenticeshipable. We should not say: "You can just go to a classroom and learn those." You need to learn those on the job. Also we need to ensure that people are indeed qualified, that we don't simply say that we're going to give everybody six months' training to satisfy the immediate demand. Rather, we want to especially give our young people, but not just young people, an opportunity to have a meaningful and full kind of career and therefore give them -- perhaps above all -- the educational wherewithal to keep learning. Rather than say, "We filled you up; now take off," we should say: "We want to educate you in a learning culture so you will indeed be able to accommodate the changing dynamic character of the workplace. Also, you will be given the skills and the aptitudes and the attitudes so that if you do change careers three or four times in your life, that won't necessarily be traumatic or devastating; rather, it might be more exciting."

J. Weisbeck: I was trying to see a correlation between the apprenticeship program and the co-op program. This morning I met with some people from the high-tech industry, and they just think the co-op program is wonderful. Where do you see these two dovetailing together?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the co-op program is indeed exciting. I think it was. . . . Was it the University of Waterloo that was the first to pioneer that in Canada years ago? When we talk co-op programs, for the most part we are talking about university-level education. If I understand the member's question, maybe implicit is: couldn't we try something similar with training and even with something like an apprenticeship? Well, in fact it is like an apprenticeship, isn't it? I agree with the member. I think it is an exciting model because it gives young people an opportunity to go out and get a marketable skill set without having to perhaps carry the huge debt load at the end of that that young people are obviously scared to death of these days. How we work it out, I don't know; I really don't know. I know that ITAC has talked about it when I chatted with them about that very subject, and perhaps the member has as well.

I think the problem confronting a co-op model or an apprenticeship model is the same -- namely, it's expensive. It is expensive, and you need to have employers who are prepared to invest in the future. Perhaps this is one of those areas where the partnership model really has to be explored in greater and greater depth, with a view to saying: can we somehow make it more attractive for potential and prospective employers to buy into that program? We all benefit from it.

I know that. My stepson was a co-op student at the University of Victoria, and that was the greatest thing in the world that ever happened for a young computer scientist. So I have a little bias on that one. Also, in my years in government I've worked with a number of co-op students who have ended up working for government for a term or two.

The model is a wonderful one. I'm happy to announce that there are some co-op pilots that have been developed by ITAC already, even in the relatively short time of being around. We're looking at them. They're being evaluated, I understand, with a view to seeing if we can go beyond. Both apprenticeships and co-ops -- and I'll wrap at this point -- are, it seems to me, extremely effective forms of school-work linkage, and I'm sure the member would agree. Both involve relevant workplace-based training, as opposed to that horrible discrepancy you sometimes get between what you learn in the classroom versus the so-called real world. I think we need to build on the strengths of both and to tailor to the industry as much as we possibly can. I'm told by the ITAC people that that is indeed their intention; that is their objective. I am looking forward to huge improvements and developments within that area.

J. Weisbeck: Just a further comment to that. I think we have a tendency to put people in boxes. We have this academic side and this applied side, and I think we have to have a movement towards combining and melding these two. I mean, industry out there is demanding that. The high-tech industry certainly is. They want people with critical-thinking skills, yet they want people with some sort of ability to do something.

I have one probably final question here. The operation of the commission calls for the selection of committees. Have there been any committees established through ITAC? If there have been, what have their mandates been? What have the results been, etc.?

[12:00]

There is a programs standing committee whose mandate is to approve industry training and apprenticeship programs, to ensure program linkages with other programs under ITAC's mandate, to oversee and evaluate new pilot programs, to determine curriculum development and review processes, and to review program design and delivery practices.

There are also a number of other committees. There's something called the designation standing committee, a credentials standing committee, an entry-level trades training and apprenticeship interface task team, an apprenticeship utilization task team, an advisory structure consultation mechanism and some other partnership activities. I would be more than happy to send the member this specific information that spells out in more detail what those are.

[ Page 8720 ]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Delta North.

R. Masi: I'm glad someone. . . . We know where Delta North is.

I was quite impressed, first of all, by the layout of the "ITAC Action Plan." There are a number of specific questions that I do have about it.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the ministry on the appointment of the CEO for ITAC. I've worked with Mr. Jothen before in skills training and found him to be very effective. I think we're all going to benefit by this appointment.

Secondly, I'd like to say to the minister that we on this side of the House have supported the ITAC initiative. I was involved with it quite a bit in the last session with the former ministers, and we certainly support the concept and the breakthrough of ideas in the whole area of apprenticeships. I think it is high time that it was done, and we look forward to results.

I still have some concerns, however, relative to the duality of the ministry in administering ITAC. I somehow feel that ITAC, or perhaps the whole apprenticeship concept, has been sort of moving about the ministries over the last three sessions. If we think back a bit -- and I'm sure the minister will remember when he was Speaker of the House -- formerly the Ministries of Education and Labour were one combined ministry. At that time, the whole thrust towards skills and training and ITAC was very much connected with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry and Labour.

I sense now that ITAC is somewhat floating here. Now, that doesn't mean that it can't be effective, but it is floating. I'm concerned about that when I look at the strategic plan in terms of a whole myriad of programs to do with aboriginal people, people with disabilities, visible minority people and women. . . . I'll exclude older workers in this. As an older worker, I don't think a high school program would affect me too much at this stage of my life. I have a concern that we graduate thousands and thousands of students from our high schools every year, and -- I've said it before in the House -- around half or better than half of those do not go on to any sort of post-secondary education at all; it just doesn't happen. What we have in the schools today. . . . We don't have a positive attitude in the schools towards apprenticeship or trade training. I think that's self-evident. That's why I appreciate very much the thrust of ITAC, especially in the area of expanding the initiatives for high school students.

However, this is my concern: the ITAC and the schools and training concept generally have gone from the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Labour now. Turfdom being what it is, I sometimes have a concern that we're missing the really fundamental point of where skills training, apprenticeship training and attitudinal change should begin. I think it has to begin at the high school level, or even before. We have had initiatives in the K-to-12 system in terms of changing the concept of applied education, but it would seem to me that the initiative should be stronger. If we had a strong initiative at the secondary level, there wouldn't be the absolute need for this whole myriad of programs in terms of aboriginal people, disabled people and visible minorities. All these people attend schools. The whole thrust of developing skills, training and jobs that these people can do and that the whole population can do should begin at that level. Then there's no need for all these programs.

I'm not criticizing the programs, because the need is sitting out there right now, and there are people in their twenties, thirties and forties -- and, obviously, older workers -- that have to be dealt with. But can we keep dealing with a fundamental problem of educating our society in this way? Can we keep attaching more and more programs for more and more specific groups? I have this concern.

I like the last column in here: "High School Students and Other Youth." I believe sincerely that the ITAC directors know that that's the fundamental problem. Maybe what we're talking about here is where it belongs. Government being what it is, ministers come and go, and governments come and go, and we have all these things happening. I think it's high time. . . .

Interjection.

R. Masi: People come and go. I think we have to, then, concentrate on giving ITAC a home, a specific place in our administrative setup.

In terms of the whole thrust here in terms of the action plan, it's a very well laid out action plan. I don't believe we can criticize the administrative approach to it at all, although I do have a few questions in terms of some of the stated goals and the time frame that we're given for completion. I'd like to, if I could, ask the minister a number of questions in this area. The first one would be the stated goal for the designation and expansion of trades and occupations -- that the ITAC people would be developing criteria and a process for the designation and review of existing and new trades and occupations. This would take place by March. I would like to ask the minister if that's been completed.

Hon. D. Lovick: The plan is being completed. We haven't done as much as one had hoped, simply because of the lack of resources.

Let me just respond ever so briefly to the member's excellent questions and comments. We are soulmates, I suspect, in this regard. I spent most of my adult working life in a college or university classroom, and I have always argued that the tragedy of modern society is that all the attention went to a very, very small percentage of our population. That's not to say that university and college education doesn't matter a great deal; it does. But what about the others? I share the member's point of view that, frankly, people have had short shrift. The explanation probably has as much to do with sociology and perceived class bias as it does with anything else. The member will know as well as I that for a very long time in our history, parents beat into their children the consciousness that you were somehow inferior if you didn't go to university. Unfortunately, we've been stuck with that silly argument for a very long time, as opposed to finding out what people really want to do and how they want to make their contribution, and recognizing that all talents and all abilities deserve to be valued and appreciated. So on that basis, the member and I are in absolute agreement.

I think he's quite legitimate to say that perhaps the bias is still too much toward advanced ed versus apprenticeship and trades training. I think he's also right when he says that we need to intervene in that debate earlier in high school. I'm happy, then, to report that that is a mission that ITAC has taken on big-time. I understand that there are 350 secondary

[ Page 8721 ]

I just want to share with the member an excellent newly published pamphlet from ITAC, which is entitled "Get a Life" and simply makes the point: "Wait a minute; you've got all kinds of options out there. It isn't just the case of you either going to work or going to university, or end of story." I think the member will appreciate knowing, in fact, (a) that the concerns he expressed are certainly shared on this side and (b) that we are indeed taking steps to try and ensure that something is done to improve that circumstance.

R. Masi: I certainly appreciate the efforts that have gone into secondary school apprenticeships, but when you think in terms of the vast numbers graduating -- into the thousands -- and then you take the number 350. . . . It's a good start, but I guess this goes back to: who's responsible, and where does the initiative come from? When you're dealing with secondary schools, you're also dealing with the Ministry of Education. I guess what I'm looking for is an initiative and a major, fundamental change in organization and thrust from the Ministry of Education. I talked to the Minister of Education about this as well, but it's very difficult to sort of focus on whose responsibility it is. So rather than having 350 secondary school apprentices, what we should have is probably in the neighbourhood of 3,500, or whatever, to get the ball rolling.

I don't know just how the ball will roll and who's going to push the ball -- whether it's the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Education. I guess the fact that the Ministry of Education is right out of the ball game now in terms of ITAC is a concern of mine; it's now in the Ministry of Advanced Education, which, despite the obvious qualities of the Minister of Advanced Education, has an area that it has to deal with as well. And it doesn't necessarily include secondary schools.

Just to pursue this a little further here, I think that one of the finer aspects of ITAC is that they are going to identify new trades and occupations suitable for designation under the program. The action plan report indicated that by June we would have a number of these trades and occupations ready for designation. I wonder if the minister could give me a few examples of these programs.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that the committee is meeting Monday to discuss that very issue.

I agree with the member's sentiment about needing to do more. We need to get more than 350. It should properly be 3,500, or perhaps ten times that much -- who's to know?

[12:15]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Masi: I'm glad to hear that on Monday we will have a list of new designations. We'll be following that with interest.

In terms of talking about secondary apprenticeships and co-op programs, these programs are there -- and I'm not denying the fact that they're in place. There are a number of excellent programs; the problem is their small number. Employers aren't always the only problem. I'd like to mention to the minister that quite often the unions are a problem as well, and we should put on record that it's often difficult to place young people in a union setting. So again, there's an additional problem that might be recognized.

Looking at the number of pilot projects that are indicated in the action plan, they should have been in place by March, according to this document. I wonder if the minister could tell me what pilot projects are now on the table and, in fact, in place in the high school trade programs.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Jothen from ITAC is asking about the reference that was made to March. Where is that? We're struggling to find that.

R. Masi: It's in appendix 1 -- "ITAC Action Plan," Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the clarification. That was indeed the strategic plan which is now being reviewed. I guess that ITAC was perhaps overly ambitious, but I'm assured they are working as assiduously and hard as they can to try and fulfil the commitments as quickly as they can.

R. Masi: Looking at the special account -- if the minister could either correct me on this or affirm -- is $70 million indicated for the dollar amount for the special account? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: The figure apparently is $69.06 million.

On the member's earlier question that I deferred for the moment, I ask him to look at the document, "A Report on ITAC Activities to Promote Equity for Underrepresented Groups." For ITAC's strategic actions, I would refer to the four particular pilot projects listed there: first, a project proposal to train women welders at BCIT; second, providing funds to women in trades and to technology organizations across the province to support girls exploring trades and technology; third, working with first nations and industry partners to develop the criteria for a new trade occupation -- the building maintenance worker; fourth, providing funding for a pilot project with Discovery to Apprenticeship, which is a trades-training, exploratory program for youth and other underrepresented groups, leading to apprenticeship entry, etc. Those are four examples of pilot projects.

R. Masi: To repeat, I guess, I appreciate that only about 5 percent are women in the apprenticeship world today. Again, that's an example of what I mean by an attitudinal change in our secondary schools and our school system. This should not be happening, if we had the right approaches. I hope that perhaps I'll be around long enough to see this happen -- I'm not sure.

To get back to the ITAC special account, there was an interesting section here on previous year's surplus. Was there a surplus carried forward to the ITAC special account?

[ Page 8722 ]

R. Masi: Will that be a procedure that will take place each year? Will any surplus accrued will just be held in the account? Or will it have to go back into general revenues?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the special account does indeed carry forward.

R. Masi: In terms of the makeup of the commission, it's an excellent organization in terms of the four-cornered partnership: business, labour, education and training and government. Is the eight-eight. . . ? This may have been answered already. Was the four-four adhered to in. . . ?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, it was.

R. Masi: What is the process of appointment for the members of the commission? For example, how do you get the person from education or business or labour?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the groups responsible for contributing to the four corners. . . . Obviously government appoints its own -- all right? The Advanced Education Council is responsible for choosing the persons to represent the training community. The business community is represented by the Business Council and the coalition of independent businesses in the province, and the workers are represented by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

R. Masi: Could I ask, then: in terms of the standing committees -- the minister outlined a number of standing committees; we don't need to go through each one of them -- what's the general process of appointment? Quite often standing committees have a more positive effect on changes than perhaps the commission itself. I would assume they bring forward the recommendations.

Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand the member's question correctly, I think the answer is to be found in the legislation itself. I would refer him to section 7, "Operation of the commission." It stipulates there how things function: "The commission may establish committees to carry out its powers and duties. . .may set out the terms of reference and mandates of those committees. . . . An individual appointed to a committee. . .who is not a member of the commission. . . ." -- that is possible as well. "The commission may delegate the exercise or performance of any power or duty considered or imposed on the commission to the chief executive officer. . . ." I guess the answer is that the committee makeup essentially is stipulated, as far as I can tell -- enabled at least -- by the legislation.

E. Gillespie: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: On behalf of our Chair, I would like to introduce a visitor to the gallery today, Jean Ann Debrecini, who's visiting from Cranbrook.

R. Masi: I would just like to wrap up by saying again that this side of the House is very supportive of the ITAC initiative. We're very, very supportive of the chief administrative officer appointed. We will, by watching carefully and by monitoring. . . . We hope we will be doing that in a positive and supportive way. That wraps up my questioning, and I'll turn it over to my colleague.

C. Hansen: I want to ask about a recent announcement made by the Premier regarding possibly 500 new seats in the high-tech sector in post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could tell us how ITAC is involved in that program.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that the decision to proceed in that way was made during the budget process -- before ITAC was directly involved. Subsequently, however, ITAC has been working with the Ministry of Advanced Education with a view to seeing whether they can in fact coordinate and work together to make the program better.

C. Hansen: If another similar announcement like that were to come out in the future, is ITAC now in a position in the relationship there such that it would be involved in the decision-making process on any announcement like that?

Hon. D. Lovick: I would certainly like to think so.

C. Hansen: I raise this only because ITAC, as I understand it, has responsibility for all industry training in the province. There is certainly a concern that if we start having announcements coming that are separate from ITAC and without them being coordinated by ITAC, then we're going to start to erode some of the mandate that ITAC deserves to have. There is a concern out there that there may be other agendas played out that ITAC isn't involved in, and that would certainly be of concern to this side.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question, Madam Chair, and I think the concern is legitimate. He may be pleased to know that the chair and the CEO of ITAC are apparently in pretty regular and close contact with various ministries to ensure that there is that kind of coordination.

C. Hansen: I want to briefly address the labour market agreement that is being discussed. I guess I raise it at this time partly because I'm not sure where it sits within the provincial government, who's driving the bus when it comes to that agreement, and what ITAC's involvement may be, now or in the future.

Hon. D. Lovick: Advanced Education apparently has the lead, as I think the member knows. I am advised that ITAC is indeed going to ensure that it is involved. Apparently some meetings have already been arranged, obviously dealing with the federal government as well. We want to make sure that ITAC's perspective is certainly at the table. So in answer to the question, yes.

C. Hansen: There is some speculation that that agreement may be reached as early as August of this year. I don't know if that's a realistic date, if it's on that time line. I'd welcome the minister's comment.

In addition, assuming that that agreement results in the provincial government taking full responsibility for training, which is now under a co-management model, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not ITAC would be the provincial government agency that would be responsible for the training that would be done under that agreement.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member posed two questions. On the first one: that apparently has yet to be determined. August 8 isn't absolutely guaranteed or ironclad.

[ Page 8723 ]

[12:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that's a perfectly fair question and a reasonable speculation. It may indeed be the case. What the member's question, and indeed the earlier questions, I think, point to is precisely the need for an organization like ITAC to try and coordinate all this wonderful multiplicity of initiatives and ideas. I'm glad he's raising the questions, and I'm happier still that apparently ITAC is indeed going to be a player.

C. Hansen: I would like to just put a concern on the record. Often when we see these kinds of transfers of responsibility from the federal government to the provincial government, with the funding that comes along with it, there have been examples in the past where funding winds up going into consolidated revenue and doesn't wind up translating into the equivalent programs at the provincial level. I think back on funding for post-secondary education, highway construction, those types of things, that over the past decades have been transferred to the province. I would just like to ask the minister to keep a watching brief on this one to ensure that with the responsibilities that may be transferred to ITAC with funding from the provincial government, that that funding does, in fact, come to ITAC to deliver those programs and doesn't get diverted into other directions.

I just have a couple of other small concerns regarding the directions that ITAC may be going in. I have a concern about the makeup of the board of ITAC. I support the way it's made up. But I would also like to ask the minister to ensure -- again, keep a watching brief -- . . .on keeping the politics out of the ITAC board. We've seen, in decades gone by, the problems with the WCB board of governors, where that boardroom, in fact, became the forum for a lot of other debates that were going on in our society but that were not relevant to the affairs of that board. My concern is that we not go down that route with ITAC, and that we will all be very vigilant in watching for any signs of that. I certainly have a very high respect for ITAC as an organization, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the integrity of that organization is maintained.

Along that line, there are some areas that I think are political issues that could potentially draw us into that trap. One of them is who controls training in British Columbia. To whom apprentices are indentured is an issue that I think we have to be very careful of. I think there are tug-of-wars that are happening out there that we don't need to have come into the ITAC board.

The other issue is the designation of compulsory TQs in British Columbia, and that also is an area that has some political land mines in it. I would be disappointed if ITAC became the forum in which those battles are fought. So I'll just flag those issues; I'm not sure if the minister wants to respond to them, but I'd certainly welcome his comments if he did.

Hon. D. Lovick: Ever so briefly, I'll simply say that I share the member's concern. The last thing we want is for a body such as ITAC to become a miniature replica of the Legislature or something. It seems to me politics belongs here. There, it isn't about politics.

Vote 52 approved.

On vote 53: ministry operations, $49,693,000.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Chair, just before we take this vote, may I simply say that I want to thank the members opposite for their very legitimate questions and their very sincere and professional approach to these estimates. I have enjoyed and certainly learned something from the exercise, and I want to thank members for their cooperation.

Vote 53 approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada