Hansard -- Thursday, March 25, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 8 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Petitions		9705
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of the Whole House		9705
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		9705
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House		9705
	Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		9705
	Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)

Committee of the Whole House		9705
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. Bray

Report and Third Reading of Bills		9707
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)

Committee of the Whole House		9707
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004 (Bill 5)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins

Report and Third Reading of Bills		9709
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004 (Bill 5)

Committee of the Whole House		9709
	Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 7)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		9711
	Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 7)

Third Reading of Bills		9711
	Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House		9711
	Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8)
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		9712
	Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8)

Third Reading of Bills		9712
	Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8)

Committee of Supply		9712
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. C. Clark
	J. Kwan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9719
	Estimates: Ministry of Skills Development and Labour (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Bruce
	V. Roddick

Hon. R. Thorpe: I table a petition signed by 190 citizens regarding the scope of practice for naturopathic physicians.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 21.

I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21, J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 21, Supply Act (No. 1), 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 23, Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 11.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: I only have one general question on this bill — that is, what the bill is trying to address. Because it's a general question, I'm going to ask it under section 1. The problems that this bill is trying to address…. Does it have any relationship to the Doug Walls situation?

J. Bray: Under section 1, I'm wondering if the minister can give me the way in which payments were authorized throughout the public service before this act and what the substantive change is with respect to the process — in 20 words or less.

Hon. G. Collins: I should probably ask the member that question, because he, in his previous life, was in the public service here in British Columbia.

The general intent of this legislation is to do the following. Previously, there were approval…. Somebody would go out and enter into a contract, etc., or a purchase arrangement. Once the payment was due, that's when the checks and the accountability started to kick

in. At that point, you were already into legally binding agreements, etc. The feeling has been that that was not the appropriate place to have the accountability. That's one of the places, but there are other places as well.

What we're trying to do with this legislation is move that accountability right up to the beginning, before somebody has entered into a contract or a legally binding agreement to purchase — or services, etc. That's the intent. Through mechanisms — through new technology and computer tracking — we're able to monitor those types of transactions in an electronic way as opposed to just somebody checking paper, which also gives us better accountability.

As an example, I might use…. I think I used it in second reading perhaps, but certainly I have in other discussions. Currently if you have a credit card, the banks have in place electronic monitoring software that sort of gives a sense of what transactions are normal for you. If transactions start to appear on your card way beyond and outside of what is normal, then it rings a bit of an alarm, and they're able to either stop a transaction before it happens or contact you and try and verify that, in fact, it's you using the credit card.

It's not exactly the same, but a similar type of software would be used in this case to monitor normal payments. If something appears that's unusual or out of the norm, then we're alerted to it very early as opposed to after the fact. We believe that this will not only save costs but also improve the accountability measures.

J. Bray: From the more operational standpoint then, is this new process going to be effective both for the types of examples that the minister gave, where we're letting out contracts, and also on the day-to-day administration within a ministry field office for the office manager who's trying to fill out requisitions for paper-clips and various other things with respect to who has the authority versus who has…? There's the payment authority. There's purchasing authority and the fact that you couldn't complete a transaction without a bunch of people signing off on the simplest transaction.

Is the minister talking about the change for only the larger one or, in fact, for every purchase that every civil servant makes on behalf of taxpayers?

Hon. G. Collins: This process should reduce the number of times the transactions need to be handled. It clarifies authority and puts the authority for the expenditure and accountability at the level that's appropriate. For example, if I or somebody in my office were to go out and buy something, they'd log in an expense transaction on the computer. It would then be bumped up to the person above them who would have the authority to approve, and it would be approved. At that point, then, that part of it's handled.

Now, once the goods are received, somebody gets on the computer and logs in that they've received them, and that's it. It's done. Then there would be the payment that would flow automatically. It reduces the burden and puts the accountability in the appropriate place.

J. Bray: Certainly, having been one of the people that signed endless forms on behalf of other staff who were perfectly capable of making those decisions, I think that's good news and should speed up — both for civil servants and for suppliers out there — the process by which we do business on behalf of taxpayers.

My other question is that there are two other sections that deal with an obligation to report to the comptroller general and the authority under which the comptroller general can deal with that. In understanding second reading debate, these were areas where there is an express obligation on public servants who notice anything that might be out of the norm to, in fact, report that, and the comptroller general has the duty to act on that. Also, there are some provisions for confidentiality of that report that comes up from the individual public servant. Certainly this is, I think, welcome, but I'm wondering — just to make sure I understand — if the minister could just walk through that so that it's clear what this new provision is and what the new protection is.

Hon. G. Collins: What we're trying to do here is strengthen the practice that's been in place for a long time in government. For a civil servant or anybody working in the public sector, if they see a financial transaction that is inappropriate or that they're concerned about at whatever stage — or even after it's done and they come across one — the requirement is that they make that known to people. In this case, what we're trying to say is: put in legislation that says you have a duty and a requirement to make that information available to the comptroller general as the person who's responsible to monitor government's financial transactions.

As well, there is protection in this legislation to ensure that people doing that feel comfortable doing it, that there's confidentiality and that they won't be…. There will be no reprisals on them for raising those issues, if it's done in good faith. They may see something that they're concerned about. Now they can raise that with the comptroller general. The comptroller general can look into it and, if it's nothing and everything's fine, can go back to the person and say: "No, it's fine. You need not be concerned about it. Here's why."

That allows for, I think, a sense of comfort from people working in the public sector that we really do want them to step forward if they see stuff and that we're willing to encourage them to do that and also protect them from taking the risk of doing that, which I think is sort of an inherent human concern — human risk — that you would see.

That's the goal with what we're doing here. I think by putting it in legislation, it strengthens the practice

that has been in place and gives encouragement and comfort to people, should they come across something that causes them concern.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister a question about whether or not this bill has any relationship to the Doug Walls situation — or does it address the situation that arose as a result of the Doug Walls scandal. The minister said no. Yet when you look at the bill, section 32 of the bill indicates: "An expenditure from an appropriation (a) must be a lawful charge against the appropriation." Then in section 32.1 it goes on to outline who may authorize an expenditure.

Let me ask this question of the minister then: if this bill was in place prior to the Doug Walls scandal, would that have prevented the Doug Walls scandal?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know because the audit hasn't been completed yet. Once it's complete, I could probably more appropriately answer that question.

Hon. G. Collins: It's been an ongoing process in government for some time to try and take advantage of the technology that's now available to government to do these kinds of transactions, remove the process burden or the bureaucracy that was around these and still put in better accountability measures. I talked about that a little bit in response to the first question by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. It's been an ongoing advancement in technology, in best practices and in trying to improve government accountability. That's an ongoing process. It's been ongoing for years, and it will probably continue to be ongoing.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 11, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; G. Trumper in the chair.

J. Kwan: This section of the bill excludes the B.C. timber sales account from the calculation. The account amounts to $131.8 million in the 2004-05 budget for the Ministry of Forests, which is about 25 percent of the ministry's budget. The Minister of Finance justifies this removal of 25 percent of the budgetary expenditures for the Minister of Forests by saying this is an amount that may be insufficient to accomplish the task of B.C. timber sales, the division of the ministry responsible for the sale of publicly owned timber.

Here we have a situation where we will be voting on the estimates for the Ministry of Forests probably in the next few weeks, and today we have the Minister of Finance saying that 25 percent of the money in that vote is not accurate and does not have to be considered for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. In short, if that is true, then he's making a mockery of the legislated requirement that ministers balance their budgets.

Last year, as you'll recall, Madam Chair, on the last day of the fiscal year we were here in this chamber until about midnight so that the government could adjust the budget for the Minister of Forests to meet the criteria of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Today we are here to pass legislation that says 25 percent of the minister's budget doesn't matter for the purposes of that act. If that's the case, it's no wonder the Minister of Forests is always looking so happy. Unlike his other cabinet colleagues, he doesn't have to play by the same rules. He gets a free ride, in other words.

The question I have for the minister is this: just how much more of that $133.8 million does the minister anticipate B.C. timber sales will have to spend?

Hon. G. Collins: This isn't the estimates for the Ministry of Forests. I just want to deal with that first. The question that she asked at the end of a fairly lengthy preamble will come up in the Ministry of Forests estimates.

I want to correct the comments and the information the member presented just a moment ago, because I think she has a misunderstanding of what this section does. This section, if she noticed…. I think it was in second reading two days ago, when I talked about this section, that I talked about the timber sales initiative. Let me give the member an example of what we're trying to do here. Let me give her an example by referring to the Ministry of Provincial Revenue.

The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is different from most other ministries, as far as the accountability legislation goes, because that ministry does not have an expenditure requirement that it needs to meet in order to receive the holdback on their salary, which they would receive at the end of the fiscal year. That ministry is designed to go out there and expend what is necessary in order to make sure we collect the revenue that is owed to the public through the legislation, etc. The minister doesn't have a spending requirement under the ministerial accountability act.

Now, the Ministry of Forests is different from that. In this respect it's a little similar, if I can use it as an example. The Minister of Forests has an expenditure budget that he is accountable for, but one component of his budget is the B.C. timber sales program. It's a program whereby government tries to generate additional revenues by investing in the work you need to do to prepare land for a timber sale. That sale goes forward, and then we receive revenues back.

Rather than try and have that ministry focus — as most ministers are and this minister in other parts of his ministry is — just on expenditure control, what we're trying to do here is say that what the minister really should be focusing on, as far as the timber sales program goes, is net revenue. He should be out there trying to prepare the appropriate amount of timber for sale so that it can be sold and the government can receive the revenues.

In fact, if the member goes to the budget documents from this year, to page 27, there is actually a discussion of this very issue in the budget document — an explanation of how the timber sales program will work. As well, when we come to the estimates of the Minister of Forests, the member will be able to find the special account for the timber sales program under vote…. Sorry. It's a special account, so that would be under the Ministry of Forests.

That whole issue is up for debate. The rationale behind it is, as I explained, that we're trying to increase revenue streams here and the net revenue to government. We're not just trying to control the costs, so it's a bit unique. The rest of the minister's budget plan continues accordingly. That's what this section does.

Also, to correct a comment by the member, a year ago we were here in the Legislature providing for the investment of $275 million in forestry restructuring. The investment was made out of collective savings across government. The largest component of the savings last year, I think, was in interest costs and debt service costs. Because of the fiscal management of government, we had money left over at the end of the year that we could expend on these types of programs. It was a corporate decision, a governmentwide decision to make that expenditure. It's an investment in the restructuring of the forest industry in B.C. — the largest restructuring we have probably seen if not in the last 50 years then probably ever — and the compensation provisions were put in place.

The exemption last year was to make sure the minister was not penalized for that, because he had come in or under budget in all of his budget. This was an exceptional circumstance. The way the ministerial accountability act is designed is that those kinds of exceptional circumstances need to come to the floor of the House for approval.

J. Kwan: According to the minister's own second reading notes, and I quote from it, he stated: "Rather than have the minister" — and this is the Minister of Forests he is referring to — "accountable for his expenditures, therefore resulting in an inappropriate or insufficient level of investment in the B.C. timber sales program, we have excluded that from ministerial accountability provisions." So what is happening is the creation of a special provision for the Minister of Forests to go over and above his budget. That's what this provision of the act does.

If you look at that and measure that against the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, it is directly contrary to the thrust of that act. That is to say, ministers are supposed to come in on or under budget. But here we have, under this provision of the act…. Let me just put section 1 on the record. It reads: "For the purposes of calculating the estimated and actual amounts of operating expenses under subsection (1) for the 2004/2005 fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year, expenditures out of the BC Timber Sales Account are not to be taken into account." The language in it explicitly exempts the Minister of Forests from being responsible for these expenditures. No other minister has that provision. No other minister has that ability to do that.

It's interesting because last year, even though the minister said, "Well, there was a rationale that the Minister of Forests went over his budget," and the rationale was a government strategic decision to allow the Minister of Forests to go over budget…. Nonetheless, the minister went over budget, and that's what we have.

The rationale, in my view, that the minister has put out simply doesn't jibe. On the one hand, he says ministers are bound by the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, but on the other hand, he is laying out exemptions for ministers to go over their budget. Can the minister explain his reasoning in saying at second reading that it is better to not have the minister accountable for the spending of the B.C. timber sales? Then just who is accountable for that amount? Is it the Minister of Finance, then? Who is accountable?

Hon. G. Collins: I explained all this when the member was sitting there. Maybe she was reading and she didn't hear me. She can certainly check the Hansard record to get a response to that question, but I have already answered it.

J. Kwan: Well, quite frankly, the minister's answer was not acceptable. He's basically just said: "Well, you know, this is what I call the 'you gotta spend to make money' amendment." Then to spend to make money….

The minister is saying: "But don't include that in the accountability of ministers of having to come in on budget or under budget." They're exempted from that accountability. This minister and the government had gone out with great fanfare to say, "Oh well, you know, all the ministers are now going to have to bring in their budget on budget, and if they don't, they will lose part of their salary," and twice over now — last year and now with this provision for this year — would expect, then, that the Minister of Forests would actually be able to bypass the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

That's exactly what this provision does. It allows the minister to get away from being held accountable under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, Madam Chair.

Hon. G. Collins: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 7.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; G. Trumper in the chair.

J. Kwan: It is interesting to note under section 1(b) that the government is adding the definition of "manufactured homes" from regulations to the act, yet the government saw in another debate that it was okay to eliminate the full definition of "spouse" and to move that to regulation. Manufactured homes deserve a place in legislation; the full definition of spouse does not. That's an interesting note. Why did the government decide to move the definition of manufactured homes to legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: For certainty as well as for clarity around tax policy — if we should end up in the courts, which often happens with tax policy — we try and keep the definitions in the legislation if at all possible.

J. Kwan: The same argument could be made for the definition of spouse. Yet, you know, for this government the definition of spouse…. When a spouse dies, then that definition…. That was in the books for eight years at least. The full definition of spouse was eliminated from legislation, and the Solicitor General said it is justifiable to do that because they could define that in regulation.

The issue around certainty is equally important as the issue around clarity in that case, for tax purposes and other purposes, but here this government sees that manufactured homes deserve to have certainty and clarity. Manufactured homes deserve to have clarity and certainty, but people don't under this government's eye. That's what the government is saying.

The Chair: Member, in section 1 there is nothing addressing spouse. We're dealing with manufactured homes in section 1. What is your question?

J. Kwan: I am comparing exactly the rationale here of why the government deems it necessary to add manufactured homes to this legislation, the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004.

J. Kwan: It is relevant insofar as this. The minister's answer says it is important to add manufactured homes into the legislation of Bill 7, entitled Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004. The reasons: certainty and clarity — clarity for tax purposes.

It's very interesting to note the standards this government sets by way of comparison to the other example that I used, and that is spouse. What this government is then saying is that manufactured homes deserve to have certainty and deserve to have clarity, but people — a spouse — don't when they die.

That was section 1(b), in which the government says manufactured homes deserve to have certainty and clarity. In another act people don't, according to this government's action.

Under section 1(c) of this bill, the government is finally amending the definition of "newspapers" to change the percentage of content that must be met by newspapers to qualify for exemption, from 25 percent to 20 percent.

This, I would suggest, is the Georgia Straight situation, where the government attempted to eliminate Georgia Straight as a newspaper by trying to tax them out of the system — out of the business perhaps — because, some argued, Georgia Straight tells it like it is. They put out articles that the minister and the government may not like and are often critical of the Liberal government's policies. The government tried as they might to actually make the newspaper disappear by trying to tax them out of the system. This amendment in the act — does that address the Georgia Straight question?

Hon. G. Collins: We generally don't talk about specific taxes as related to specific entities or companies, but I think the Georgia Straight went out of its way to raise this issue, as is their prerogative. I'm actually a fan of the Georgia Straight. I like to read it. I think their articles are interesting. I don't always agree with everything that's in it, but lots of times I do. It depends on what it is. I think it provides an interesting perspective on lots of public issues. I do enjoy reading it myself, as do many of my constituents and others in Vancouver.

The previous tax legislation was implemented by officials in the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. They complied with the act. At no time was there any involvement with the political level of government until such time as the Georgia Straight made this a public issue, and it was brought to the attention of the ministers.

I was in Ottawa at the time at a federal-provincial meeting when the issue came to my attention. It was my opinion as the minister who is responsible for tax policy that the Georgia Straight was in fact a newspaper — in my opinion, for what that's worth — and that if the act somehow made that not so, then it would be the proper thing to do to adjust tax policy in order to make sure that they were treated as a newspaper.

That was announced, I think, the very same day. The review was undertaken. The result of that was lots of discussion with the Newspaper Guild, with the Georgia Straight and others, as well, to try and come up with a mechanism by which that issue could be resolved. The determination was that the best way to do it, the simplest and most effective way to do it, was to bring forward the amendment you see here.

As I said previously, the political level was not involved, nor is it ever involved in the direct implementation and collection of tax revenues until such time as that becomes necessary for policy reasons.

J. Kwan: Let me just close with this statement, then. It is interesting that the minister says he's a big fan of the Georgia Straight newspaper, and what the government actually tried to do is to tax them out of business. Some fan, I say.

Actually, it's sort of the same thing as what the government is trying to do when it says it's trying to prioritize the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, and what they do in that process, of course, is make the deepest cuts in programs impacting the most vulnerable people in British Columbia. For me, actually, thank God I'm not a fan of this government and this minister, because who knows what they might try to do if that was the case? I would rather actually not be that fan where you would try and put me out of business, as in the case of the Georgia Straight.

Hon. G. Collins: I think the appropriate terminology would be that we would be a fan of her, not her of us, but either way it is unlikely to happen.

As I said earlier — contrary to the comments by the member opposite and contrary to comments by the owner of the Georgia Straight — the government at the political level was not involved at all in the determination of whether or not this gets applied until such time as it becomes a policy issue. Or an appeal issue, I suppose, could go to the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Certainly, when I became aware of it, I felt that it was not the intent of the policy and asked that a review be done in an effort to correct it, and it was done. There has never been any attempt by any of us at the political level to do what the member opposite alleges, but then she alleges lots of things that aren't true.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 6 standing on the orders of the day in my name.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 7, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; G. Trumper in the chair.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I just have a question to the minister around new investment in port facilities. As I understand it, this cap for new investment would be for ten years, ongoing from 2004. We had a very major announcement in Vancouver harbour just this week about a $130 million expansion, a doubling of the capacity of a centre and terminal. They talked about some new gantry cranes and extending the railroad tracks. I think it was about 100 new jobs.

I know the legislation is certainly targeted to getting additional investment in our ports on the west coast, as we're obviously in competition with ports up and down the Pacific coast. Is this sort of tax adjustment targeting those sorts of new investments, and does it cover that time period?

Hon. G. Collins: This is exactly the kind of investment this act is trying to encourage. There have been discussions ongoing for a number of years between various levels of government — municipal, federal, provincial — and the industry with regard to appropriate rates for property tax.

The component the member is talking about is the tax cap on new investment. I had discussions with the industry in general. I have dozens of meetings with business people and potential investors as the years go by, and this was one of those. I had a broad meeting with most of the proprietors and operators of port facilities in the lower mainland as well as the mayors and council.

It was expressed to me by the industry as a whole that there would be significant new investment if they could have some certainty with regard to future taxation rates. That was a big component of their business planning — the taxes that they would be required to pay on an annual basis. What they were seeing was uncertainty. They were seeing trends that were disturbing and were having negative impacts on them being able to make capital investment decisions.

I also met with a number of the port operators separately and privately where they put forward to me and gave me a sense, on a confidential basis, of the types of capital investments that they were considering — obviously, for competitive reasons, they don't want to do that in a group — and that would be impacted by any potential certainty that might be implemented with regard to their tax rates. It was clear to me that there was great interest if they were to come through and that it was worthwhile doing this on behalf of the economy of British Columbia, those communities, the provincial government and indeed the whole country.

The announcement that was made, I think, earlier this week by P&O was encouraging. The $130 million capital investment is exactly the type of thing we were talking about. That's one of the examples of the type of investment that I was advised might occur. I was very pleased to see it actually happen. The investment is a hugely positive signal to industry, to other port operators who are competing, that they all need to invest if they're going to remain competitive in the months and years ahead.

It's also, I think, a positive message to the communities which are concerned that this legislation might come into force but not result in new investment. It was a very early indication that in fact the legislation is working and doing exactly what we talked about. I was very pleased to see that the investors themselves made

reference to the fact that this was a key component in the investment that they made — the certainty around tax information. With that, I was very encouraged to see such early results to the initiative.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Just on section 5, it lists the local governments that the province is going to compensate on the difference of taxation between the cap and what their tax rates might have levied. There were two I noticed when the bill was introduced that I guess I hadn't expected to be on the list. One is the city of Prince Rupert, and one is the district of Squamish. I envisioned in my mind that this was really for the port of Vancouver and that it was the greater Vancouver area, if you would, that this bill was directed at.

I wonder if the minister could just explain the rationale for including Prince Rupert and Squamish and how they came into the equation. I assume that it's a positive step and that they've been involved in the consultation. I wonder if you could just explain that to me, please.

Hon. G. Collins: The same criteria really apply. We did this initiative in the lower mainland because that's where the energy originated, I would say, for this type of a discussion. Certainly, that's where the largest component of the port industry is — in the lower mainland.

At the time we announced this, we thought there might be other ports in the province that would be in a similar position. As a result, when we announced the government's intention to move forward with this, we said that we would also at that point embark upon a broader discussion with ports across the province and see if there were similar issues at play. Indeed, certainly in Squamish the same criteria apply. As well, they're in direct competition with the ports in the lower mainland. In the case of Prince Rupert, it's obviously a major national port. It's taxable, and therefore this provision applies. That was the rationale.

I am pleased to say we were able to conclude those discussions prior to the budget, so we were able to include it in this year's budget and in this legislation that's before the House.

Hon. G. Collins: On section 6, I think there is a typo in the preparation of the legislation, in that at the end of 6(1) the word "under" appears and then followed by the two subsections (a) and (b) which restate the word "under."

I would move an amendment that the word "under" in section 6(1)(a) and (b) as it appears be struck.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply for consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

D. Jarvis: Good morning. I have several questions to ask the minister with respect to children and families. The first one is ostensibly on behalf of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. He's unable to be here today, unfortunately, so he asked me if I'd ask the Minister of Children and Family Development questions which may be of interest to many MLAs, particularly to himself, since he was born in the area where the problem is occurring.

It's ostensibly in a Vancouver Sun article on the op-ed page on March 9. It's entitled "How to Ensure the

Biggest Payoff," and it's addressing an issue that I know is sort of vital to the minister's priorities — namely, the funding of inner-city schools.

You wonder why the member for West Vancouver–Capilano would be asking such a question with regard to Vancouver inner-city schools, but the MLA was brought up, as I say, in the east side of Vancouver. His father was a house painter in the area, and he went to school at Florence Nightingale and met his wife at Florence Nightingale School. So he has quite a concern.

That Vancouver Sun article of March 9 contained a very interesting table citing the socioeconomic characteristics of 15 inner-city schools in Vancouver, including two of special interest to him, as I said, since he graduated from them — those being Florence Nightingale and Mount Pleasant.

Maybe I should read into the record the commentaries in the paper, the op-ed. It said:

It pointed to a chart that showed the most vulnerable elementary schools. At Mount Pleasant the percentage with family income less than $20,000 represented 33 percent. Single parents in that Mount Pleasant school were 27 percent, the percent on income assistance was 32 percent, and unemployed adults in that area attending that school — parents, that is — amounted to 19 percent. Ostensibly, it's the same with Florence Nightingale school. Their figures were 32 percent, 26 percent and 27.8 percent, and 16 percent unemployed.

On that basis — I'm coming to the question, slow but sure — the member for West Vancouver–Capilano recently contacted John Mullan, the community coordinator of Florence Nightingale. He explained to the West Van MLA the considerable uncertainty over reductions in funding at that school for such activities as after-schools, Saturday sports and other activities intended, as he put it, so that the children don't get into trouble, so that they stay in school. There are some very ugly situations occurring to these youngsters in that area, and it is necessary to keep them centred — that school is there for them, etc.

According to Mr. Mullan, the funding picture is complex, involving various ministries, various programs and other funding agencies such as the school board, which makes its own autonomous decisions. It appeared to Mr. Mullan that the ministry is sharing its available resources, which we all appreciate are somewhat constrained, more broadly across the province and perhaps even more broadly in Vancouver. As a result, these particular inner-city schools that I have mentioned are particularly impacted.

The West Vancouver–Capilano MLA also spoke to Gail Marlow, the inner-city project teacher at Florence Nightingale School, who feared serious loss of funding and such programs as micro-soccer and micro-basketball, imagination arts, bringing in artists and Science World visits, science explorations and so on. If they were cancelled, it was quite a concern. She feared there will be no extra money to send kids to camps or to the aquarium and so on, and such programs might be affected.

Programs for parents who typically speak Vietnamese, Cambodian and Spanish will possibly be curtailed. We appreciate that the money is tight. So could the minister — here comes the question — give us some assurance that the inner-city schools such as Florence Nightingale and Mount Pleasant will not be unduly impacted?

S. Orr: Today in the gallery I'm very lucky to be joined by 30 grade 5 students. They're from Doncaster Elementary. They have to be, by far, the most well-behaved students I have ever had to deal with. They all sat on the floor; they were absolutely perfect. They have just built in their school a model of Barkerville, and they have presented me with some letters that they would like me to give to the Premier, which I'm going to do. With them is their teacher, Ms. Diane Boyce. I would like the House to really make these wonderful, wonderful students very welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll add my welcome to all the students that are here today. Being able to watch what goes on in the Legislature is a rare opportunity to be able to see it in real life. It is kind of like going to a hockey game in real life versus watching it on TV. The rink is a lot smaller, and the play seems a little bit less civilized, perhaps, when you sit here in real life. So welcome. I'm glad you came.

I hope some of the young kids who are watching mark today as the beginning of a real lifelong political interest, because there is nothing more important than being involved in your civic community. There is nothing more important than voting. Democracy is the most important gift we have as a society. Your participation in that — not just voting but making your voices heard on the issues that are important to you — is going to be incredibly important in making this the kind of country and the kind of province we want to live in.

Hon. C. Clark: In answer to the member's question, the Vancouver school board is receiving less money

this year for Community LINK than it has in the past. That is largely as a result of the fact that our province has engaged in a process of devoting the money for needy kids to the places where those kids are. When we looked at the way the previous government had distributed the money, it certainly appeared that the money that was given to school districts was based more on the politics of the school district than on the needs of the children in those districts.

What we've done is changed the way we distribute that money. Twenty-four districts are getting more money, three districts are getting the same money, and some districts are getting less money. It means a redistribution of money across the province to focus on the children who need it the most. The decision about deciding in which areas kids were the neediest was based on the population of the kids in those schools who were living under the poverty line.

One of the things we've discovered is that it is not just the fact that a child lives in poverty that puts that child at risk for learning; it is the number of children at a school who live in poverty that makes a real difference in making it much more risky for those kids to be able to learn. What we've done is looked at the school populations across the province and looked at the number of kids disadvantaged in each of those schools and redistributed the money based on that.

We've also asked school districts to come up with ways that are a little more innovative, to try and see if they can deliver the services more cheaply if possible. Some districts have been very innovative and come up with much less expensive ways to deliver things like school lunches than others. In Vancouver — although at the political level the school board has stood up and said, "No, we're going to take all this money out of school lunches; we're not going to take care of these kids" — the staff has actually said at that level that they think they can figure out a way to make their school lunch program work and continue to serve about the same number of kids, even though they're going to have less money to do it. That's as a result of the fact they've been innovative and thoughtful about the way they want to try and deliver that program. They want to make sure they deliver it as cheaply as possible, so they can spread out as much service as possible for the same amount of money.

That has been a very important thing, I think, for Vancouver and for all the other districts, because we have an obligation as a government and as a society to make sure we're spending every dollar that's available for kids as well as we possibly can. That means stretching it often. It means squeezing out as much value as we possibly can. There are lots of examples of where that's been done across the province. We are making sure, in restructuring the way we spend this money, that the kids who are neediest are getting the service first and foremost.

D. Jarvis: Thank you for your answer. I imagine there are other questions coming up from other members with regard to that subject, but I personally have another situation in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour. It is another situation where money is being squeezed, as you put it, and that is ostensibly to do with special needs and parents with special needs children. As you know, a special needs child requires more need than the present day care situation can handle.

I have approximately ten to 15 women in my area that are in need, and their children are on the eligible wait-list of the child care program. I am told that there are going to be changes in September and that they will be notified before September, or something along that line. A child without special needs can go to a friend's house after school, should their day care situation be difficult. The situation is that they have difficulty with a child that has special needs and finding a place for it.

It is coming down to the point where a lot of the mothers have said that they're either going to have to quit their jobs and go on welfare — or something like that — and stay at home, because they're single and have children, and they can't afford to, or there aren't the spaces available. Home care through a valid agency can be cost-prohibitive for them, and finding one can be very difficult in the short term. On a long-term basis, it's not bad, but they're more concerned about the short term.

My two questions are: what can we do for people on the wait-list? And can the minister tell me if there will be any additional funding beyond the current budget for emergency situations where parents might find themselves in a predicament because they can't find an affordable and timely place for emergency short-term care? I will leave the questions with you.

Hon. C. Clark: Our budget for special needs children has been protected, and it actually has been increased in this ministry. Last year it was $37.4 million, and this year it's going to be $40.3 million. There aren't any changes anticipated from the perspective of this ministry for September, so I hope that is helpful for the parents. I know the member will probably want to explore this issue with other ministers who bear responsibility for some of the issues with respect to child care, as well, but not from the perspective of this ministry.

We've protected the funding for special needs kids. There has actually been more money going into supported child care for kids who are under six, which I think is probably the population the member is talking about, and we've got a new wait-list management policy. We recognize that wait-lists are a significant issue for people who are trying to find a space for their kids, and as kids get older, they age out of one child care spot and need to move into another.

That's often a very difficult process for parents, because they need to search around and try and find the right spot. That's tough enough if your child is a typical child. If your child has special needs in addition to that, there can be even more of a challenge in doing that, so that's why we've brought in the new wait-list policy. That's why we're working on trying to make sure we help parents manage some of those really,

really difficult issues they have in trying to find a spot for a child who has very specific, sometimes very challenging needs and, as the member pointed out, can't just go to a neighbour's to be looked after for a few hours after school.

J. Kwan: I just want to make one quick comment about the Community LINK issue that the member had raised on behalf of the member from West Van, for he went to…. He and his former wife — late wife, actually, I believe — went to the two east-side schools that are in my riding. The minister's response to why the hot meals programs, the counselling programs, the programs to help parents become more involved in the schools, particularly with at-risk children, was that the former government based the policy on evaluation, on who qualifies….

That was based on politics, she said. The government in their wisdom today decided to eliminate $3 million out of the Vancouver school board budget for the inner-city schools. I have to say nothing could be further from the truth in terms of the formula that was based on who needs what funding. I will tell you right now, Madam Chair, that in my riding we are the lowest-income riding in all of Canada.

We have the greatest number of needy kids in all of Canada. We have troubled families, families who are faced with tremendous challenges. Together with my riding in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and that of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, we have the largest urban aboriginal community in the lower mainland and, I venture to say, in British Columbia.

For the minister to suggest that those schools that are faced with the cuts the member from West Van had identified and that those cuts are in fact almost inconsequential, according to the minister's words, because other kids need it in other areas…. So they took from Peter to pay Paul. To suggest that the schools and the kids in the east side — I shouldn't say "east side," because it's not just in the east side of Vancouver but in Vancouver — are somehow less deserving of government dollars is absolutely outrageous. It is outrageous for this minister, who was a former Minister of Education, who claims that she cares about children.

The issue about Community LINK funding is not about who needs the money more so that you can take from one hungry kid to give to another, so that you can take one set of counselling programs that keep children at risk in school away from another set of children who need those counselling programs to stay in school. Children who need these supports should be there, and we should not be pitting communities against communities to say that that one is more needy than that of yours. It is absolutely stunning that the minister will say such things, and it's beyond comprehension that the minister would be able to utter these words in the way that she did.

Let me tell you that I met with the school board folks in Vancouver, and they do not have the moneys to deal with these cuts, because in addition to the Community LINK cuts, they're faced with an $11 million shortfall in their budget. I know these are education issues, which I will bring out with the Minister of Education, but Community LINK falls in this ministry. For the minister to suggest the school board has the money to do it and everything is hunky-dory is anything but true.

I will canvass in full detail around Community LINK, school by school, what the impacts are when we get to that. The minister cannot be let to get away with such frivolous nonsense that she just spewed in this House moments ago. I will indeed bring forward the facts. These are facts from the school board in terms of the impacts of these cuts, and we will go into canvassing the details of those cuts as they impact the schools.

I would now like to turn to the issues we were discussing last night, and that would be the issues around the Doug Walls scandal, the chaos this ministry has been under. Quite frankly, last night we didn't get very far with this minister.

J. Kwan: She says: "Nor today." She has already predetermined how she's going to approach estimates debate with the opposition. She says: "Uh-huh." The minister should.… Well, actually, I'm going to keep my advice to her to myself. She can conduct herself as she deems to be appropriate. We'll let the community judge how she's conducting herself.

The Doug Walls scandal, just to recap a little bit here, really began in the pre-2001 election. Doug Walls, as we know, is a relative of the Premier by marriage, and he is a Prince George, B.C. Liberal insider at whose house the Premier stays while he's on visits to Prince George. He's also the president of Prince George–Omineca riding association.

In 1998 the media in Prince George reported that there was an RCMP probe into the Walls car dealership. It was a messy bankruptcy. Many people were angry about car deals that had gone bad and employees left high and dry, and there were rumours of fraud.

Then in 2001 Ben Meisner reports that Doug Walls handpicked school board colleague Shirley Bond to run in the 2001 election instead of him because he was damaged goods as a result of his car dealership bankruptcy.

In June of 2001 Doug Walls met with Ken Dobell, the Premier's senior deputy, plus future interim authority chair David Driscoll and four others, laying out the plans for community living and the model for individualized funding. Ken Dobell indicated that if the proposal would be well received by the Premier's office — this was prior to the core review process for MCFD being done — then action would be taken.

In July 2001 Doug Walls and David Driscoll became founding members of the Individualized Funding Family Coalition and started to plan how to fit it into the new governance structure that the government was preparing.

In September 2001 a company called CareNet, whose debt was secretly written off…. In November of 2001 the Individualized Funding Family Coalition founded by Doug Walls and David Driscoll joined with the B.C. Association for Community Living to form the Coalition for Community Living and lobbied the government members for an individualized funding system to be managed by an independent authority.

The Coalition for Community Living met with the former Minister of Children and Family Development on November 30, 2001. On December 12, 2001, Doug Walls reports that cabinet approved a governance model based on their proposal — six days before the MCFD core review consultation process was complete. Keep in mind that in March 2002, Doug Walls declares personal bankruptcy and remains an undischarged bankrupt.

In April 2002 the Liberal government puts together a transition steering committee to implement the coalition's proposal. The majority of members are coalition nominees. David Driscoll is the co-chair. Doug Walls is the senior consultant, and the rest of the consultants were either coalition members or friends and associates of Doug Walls and the former deputy minister, Chris Haynes. Doug Walls got over $63,000 in untendered contracts, the largest single payout of the committee's budget.

In July 2002 Alanna Hendren, the executive director of the Developmental Disabilities Association, faxed a letter to the former Minister of Children and Family Development and later on also notified her MLA who is the Minister of Finance — information about Doug Walls's many contracts and also about his shady business fraud background. Alanna Hendren sent an e-mail to the former minister's executive assistant, attaching court records related to the CIBC accusations of fraud against Doug Walls and expressed concerns regarding CareNet and other Walls companies.

On October 30, 2003, the final report of the steering committee was released by the former Minister of Children and Family Development. A 30-day internal ministry review was started, and then a 30-day community feedback procedure began.

On November 12, 2002, an interim authority was created to take over the work of the steering committee to offer an individualized funding alternative for developmentally disabled British Columbians — Doug Walls's main goal all along. The authority's executive chose Doug Walls as the interim CEO. Eighteen of the authority's 25 directors were chosen by the coalition. Friends of Doug Walls and Chris Haynes, former deputy, were chosen as the authority's principal consultants.

In December 2002 Doug Walls apparently takes over as head of the interim authority and later says that he didn't hide the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt regarding his Prince George car dealership.

January 23, 2003. First proof that Doug Walls has been appointed acting CEO of the Interim Authority for Community Living B.C. The interim authority chair, David Driscoll, writes a letter to the Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development on January 23, 2003, to advise that Doug Walls would now be the acting CEO. I should say the former deputy minister. In this letter Mr. Driscoll informs Mr. Haynes: "Effective immediately, Doug Walls will be acting as CEO." The letter also asks that Mr. Walls be included "in any conversations, meetings, appointments, discussions or any other aspects of business relating to transition activities where the involvement of the CEO of an interim authority, regional planning committee or aboriginal planning committee is required or desirable."

On March 24, 2003, in estimates, my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings asked the former Minister of Children and Family Development for a list of the CEOs of the regional authorities. The former minister provided a list of names of the interim authorities but did not include the CEO of the Interim Authority for Community Living, Doug Walls. When my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings specifically asked for information as to who was the interim CEO for community living, he replied with the following statement: "Currently, the senior government representative is Elaine Murray. They will be going through a selection process sometime in the next number of months."

On December 9, 2003, Holman interviews the former minister and asks questions about an outstanding $400,000 bill owed by Walls to the government. The former minister says later that he didn't read the file and just handed it over to an ADM. An internal audit into Ministry of Children and Family Development contract dealings was then launched — secretly, I might add. News of the audit only became public on January 23, 2004, when the former minister and the former deputy stepped down and the audit is extended to examine the Doug Walls scandal.

The Chair: Member, I would point out that under standing orders, your time has expired.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Madam Chair. Then let me pause for a moment here and ask the minister a question. I'll continue on with the chronology in this situation in a few moments, for it is important to understand the chronology.

My question to the minister is this. These are the facts to date and are public and are well known. In fact, the minister was made aware….

The minister was made aware of the Doug Walls situation well in advance of when the internal audit was ordered. The minister knew of that back in July 2002. Why didn't they take action then?

J. Kwan: Why didn't the minister take action back in July 2002 when they knew there were issues and

people had flagged these issues with the former minister and with the current Minister of Finance?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I'll take the opportunity to let the member finish her chronology, and then we can get on with the questions that I suspect she really wants to put.

J. Kwan: I just put a question to the minister. The former minister was advised back in July 2002 by Alanna Hendren about these issues. She flagged it not just for the former minister but also to the Minister of Finance, and no action was taken. Yesterday the minister said they took action immediately when the matter came to light — not so. Eighteen months later, when the matter became public, then the government took action. Why was there such a lengthy delay? Why didn't they take action 18 months ago?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said a number of times yesterday, all of these issues that the member has raised in this long question have been the subject of the audit. The audit has been ordered by our government. It was ordered as soon as we became aware that there was a problem. That audit is underway right now. It's going to be an independent, thorough, third-party, objective look at all the issues surrounding this and all the issues that the member has raised. I expect it is the audit that will be able to answer these questions that she's raised.

J. Kwan: It's simply not true for the minister to say that they took action as soon as they learned of the situation. They took action when the situation became public, not as soon as they learned of the situation. The Minister of Finance knew of the situation, for letters were faxed to him regarding concerns with Doug Walls — and the former minister received that information as well — back in July 2002, not 18 months later. That's an outright mistruth that the minister just told.

The facts are before us. I have the letter from Alanna Hendren before me that was faxed to the ministers. To claim that they knew nothing of it until 18 months later is simply not true. Those are not facts. It's fabrication from this minister.

Why didn't this government take action 18 months ago when they learned of the truth and the issues associated with the Doug Walls scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: The answers to those questions will be part of what we learn from the audit. The ministry initiated an audit on December 9 as a result of the issues that had been raised that came to our attention at that time.

J. Kwan: The minister can continue to say that they knew nothing until it became public. Well, I have the letters, as I said, from people who raised this matter with the minister 18 months ago. It was internal to government then. It wasn't public information. Later on, when the government didn't take action, the matter then became public information. Then the government was forced to bring forward an audit. The chronology illustrates that, and the facts back up this chronology.

The minister won't answer the question. She's hiding behind the fact that they took action — the robot answer she's been given, to say they took action as soon as they were told, when in fact it's not true. They were told 18 months ago. They took action after it became a public scandal. That's the truth. What that points to is government's mismanagement 18 months before the matter became public.

Let me continue on with the chronology. On January 17, 2004, Sean Holman breaks the story that the Liberal government has appointed a special prosecutor, Mr. Wood, to look into acting interim authority chair Doug Walls's business dealings — the car dealership bankruptcy in Prince George. Wood was appointed secretly on January 8. It was only because of Sean Holman's story that the appointment was announced publicly — subsequently.

On January 16, 2004, Doug Walls has stepped down as acting chair of the interim authority. Questions are also raised at this time about the thousands of dollars in untendered contracts that Walls had received through the Community Living Transition Steering Committee, co-chaired by Walls's old buddy from Prince George, the former deputy minister Chris Haynes. But the AG's office states that the special prosecutor…. The Attorney General's office states that it is not related to the work done by Walls for government.

On January 23, 2004, the former Minister of Children and Family Development and his deputy, Chris Haynes, stepped down, citing a $400,000 loan that was written off — written off, apparently, without authorization — supposedly. The Liberal government, the Premier, announced that it is appointing an independent auditor "to review all matters related to the involvement of Doug Walls as a consultant to government and his agencies and his role on behalf of government." It is noted in the news release that the independent audit will "extend and complete an internal audit into business transactions within the MCFD — the Ministry of Children and Family Development — that was initiated on December 9, 2003." The comptroller general is to supervise the independent auditor.

The release also indicates that the report will be kept secret, and the Premier will release only the conclusions, which this minister reaffirmed yesterday again — that they would not release the full report for the public's information.

Articles started to link Doug Walls's work with the interim authority with his business dealings with Westpro NGO Web Technologies Inc. and CareNet Technology Society. On January 27, 2004, the Premier shuffles the cabinet and makes this minister now the new Minister of Children and Family Development.

On January 30, 2004, the Liberal government appoints PricewaterhouseCoopers as the independent auditor to review all matters related to the involvement

of Doug Walls as a consultant to government and his agencies and his role on behalf of government.

In February 2004 reports surface that Doug Walls had collected over $214,000 in untendered contracts while telling bankruptcy officials he was making only a fraction of that. In fact, taxpayers were paying Doug Walls between $550 and $700 a day for government consulting work.

On February 6, 2004, the new minister announces that the ongoing work of the financial management review stating that work has been ongoing since September 2003 and that it will lead to an end to unconditional grants, a review of transitional planning grants and yet another plan to update the ministry's information system.

Let me just stop here for one moment. These grants — these planning grants or transitional grants — that the government handed out without tendering, without contracts, exceed $100 million. They are supposedly the savings that the government had yielded throughout the ministry — all while the government is making deep cuts to services for children and families in need.

On February 11, 2004, the new minister and the interim authority announce, "Vision Reaffirmed for Community-based Governance," and appointed Bert Boyd, a member of the initial readiness panel to recommend a revised time line for devolution by February 27.

On March 1, 2004, the old interim authority board was quietly dismissed. The only information comes in an update to the interim authority website, which states that the original board's orders-in-council expired February 19 and that a new board is expected March 5. On March 4, 2004, a new three-person board for the interim authority was established: the newcomer, Lois Hollstedt, as chair; and two former board members — Walls's individualized funding allies — Rod Gunn and Lynn Rolko.

This is the chronology to date. From the chronology, as I have mentioned, it is clear that the government knew of the situation well in advance of when they launched the audit 18 months back. Government did nothing until the matter became public.

Yesterday I began to ask questions of the minister about Doug Walls's qualifications. What were his qualifications — that the government deemed he was able to lead a major government reorganization? The minister would not answer the question. I asked the minister why in September 2001, before the ministry's core review process had even been completed, did the Premier's office tell Doug Walls that the government would be interested in adopting his plan for individualized funding in the community living sector. The minister would not answer the question.

I asked the minister if she knew about section 8 of this government's new consumer protection bill, which states that an undischarged bankrupt is not qualified to be a director of the consumer protection authority. The minister would not answer that question. I asked the minister: why did this same government feel that it was appropriate for an undischarged bankrupt — even if he was an insider of the Liberals, even though it was a friend and relative of the Premier — to be the acting CEO of a provincial agency that has huge responsibilities? The minister would not answer the question. I asked the minister: how is it that the government could turn a blind eye to how Doug Walls, with his violation of section 8 of the government's new act in being an undischarged bankrupt, could become the CEO of the interim authority? The minister would not answer that question.

I asked the minister why she won't answer any of the questions, to live up to the notion of openness and accountability that she campaigned on with her Premier and the rest of the Liberal colleagues in the last election. They consistently continue to say that they are open and accountable. The only answer she could come up with was: "There is an audit, and you'll get the conclusion. Then, if you want more information, you have to FOI it." That's what the minister has said to date.

I asked the minister why she would force people to go through an FOI process. Well, she says that the conclusion will deal with all of the issues. I asked the minister why she won't answer any of these questions. She says, "Because the audit will deal with all of these issues," with the exception of this, Madam Chair. The public would not get to see the audit. It is only for insiders' eyes. They will be the people who get to see the audit.

J. Kwan: They will be the people who get to see the audit. The public will not get to see the audit. So I said: "Okay, if that's the case and the minister is so confident that the audit will answer all these questions, if they do not answer the questions from the conclusions that would be released from the audit, will she commit that she will release the full audit?" The answer was no.

I have more questions for the minister, but noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

J. MacPhail: Has the minister had a chance to get the agreement around the underground economy for me that was dated 2001?

J. MacPhail: The reason why I said 2001 is because that was the date, I think, that the minister said in estimates. Is this agreement in full force and effect?

Another matter to clear up is that the minister said there are no fees charged for essential services at the LRB. We found we had people who were quite concerned about the minister saying that, so they sent us in an order-in-council, No. 1033. "On the recommendation of the Treasury Board, the Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the executive council orders that the attached Labour Relations Board fees regulation is made effective January 5, 2004." We couldn't find it being removed from anywhere.

No. 18. "For each day…." I'm sorry. It was mediation services that the question was asked about. "For each day or part of it that the mediation services of the mediation officer appointed under section 74(1) of the code are provided, $250 each party."

Hon. G. Bruce: A point of clarification, then. For essential service determinations, as long as the parties are working things out themselves, there are no charges in that respect, if I have this correct. If there was mediation required between the parties around the essential service levels — so wherever mediation is required — there is a charge. I took it that the discussion was around the determination of essential services — that as long as parties were working and able to determine that the mediation wasn't required, then there weren't any charges. If there is mediation — mediation goes across the board — if I've got this correct, that is $250 to each party per day.

The other point I wanted to be clear on is that there is no charge for an application that's made for essential service levels to be designated.

These fees payable, pursuant to order-in-council 1033 — can the minister tell me what are new fees and what are ongoing fees?

J. MacPhail: So we have 30 new fees. What's the amount of money this is going to raise that was never previously charged?

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand the member is asking these questions. I'll just point out that — and I realize you've got a big task because there are just the two of you — your colleague did canvass this. Not to be repetitive; I understand you'd like to know this. Our view is the estimate is about $300,000.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I'm fine to be advised of that. I don't have time to repeat what work's already been done, too, so I appreciate it. I'm happy we could clarify the fee for mediation.

On the skills shortage, the 2010 Human Resources Planning Committee…. On February 26, 2004, the ministry released the final report of the 2010 Human Resources Planning Committee. I assume this hasn't been canvassed yet. It says so in my book.

Hon. G. Bruce: We did touch on it, but I think they're certainly worthy of more canvassing. That's not a problem.

J. MacPhail: Is that report a result of the human resource strategy, or are there other reports associated with this strategy?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's part of a work in progress. There's much more yet to come. As the member opposite knows, and others too, where we're going just in straight demographics in regards to the changes in the labour force will be a very significant challenge.

What government is trying to do in its role both in the private sector and the public sector in bringing the parties together…. What government currently does is everything from the actual apprenticeship training programs right through to K-to-12 and immigrant workers who come to the area with respect to the skills that they may bring to British Columbia — kind of the whole grouping of that in how we can best make sure that we have the best skilled workforce that one could find and, more to the point, that we try where we can to make sure it's British Columbians that have those skills. Part of that initiative — in a different way, but it ties to it — was the introduction just recently of increasing the number of seats in post-secondary education.

But there's a more comprehensive piece to this. We're working right now cross-ministry in government and also trying to correlate, then, with what the federal government is doing as well, combined with a number of other initiatives as people get interested in this in the private sector, so that, at the end of the day, when one would…. I always kind of come back to, I would be advising one of my four kids if there was a future…. I wouldn't want them to go and spend two and three years in a particular sector or area training up to find that what we were talking about in the end was cyclical and not structural — that there is good information that young people, industry and the workforce can actually take a look at and say, "This is where it's going to grow," and know that there's a good opportunity if you spent two or three years doing the appropriate training or whatever, that you would have a future in that respect.

It is a large bite, no doubt. We can see the economy starting to turn. We can see certain demands right now in the construction field. We obviously know there are demands in regards to the health field already, and those are some of the changes that we've made in that respect in nursing and physicians.

We're really trying to be able to come forward from a human resource strategy — it's not a very sexy name — and say: "Here's where we think we're going to be, and here's where we think that demand's going to be." Then, if we can get there in a comprehensive way, not only by sector but also by region…. Obviously, oil and gas demand won't be the same on lower Vancouver Island as it would be up in the northeast sector. Construction demand is provincewide right at the moment — house construction across the province — but in areas like Fort St. John, there's been a demand there for quite sometime.

Then to go from that to be able to better identify for folks where those jobs are within the province and identify a better process of matching both the demand and supply. Often, I would think, there are people with skill sets in one part of the province who don't know there are opportunities in another.

In today's world there ought to be a way of being able to better match that and offer greater accessibility. I think at this point we have 110 websites that talk about job offerings of one form or another. If you've ever gone on the computer and tried to work your way through the maze, it is just that. We're trying to work through all of those parts, and it is clearly a work in progress.

J. MacPhail: The ministry prepared a report in January 2003, Summary Report: Skill Shortage Meetings. What's been the progress on this?

Hon. G. Bruce: That was kind of a first and second phase of the beginning of this. We've incorporated that and are working through with that in the larger strategy. Subsequently, staff have had meetings with some of the agencies that were mentioned there, but this is a continuing work.

Just recently there was another report released that I think pretty much substantiated the numbers we were looking at in respect to the job change during the course of the next few years. That went to 2016. Ours was based on 2010. What we're really trying to do is get a good handle on this, not in a short-term view of what's the next two or three years, but actually what's the next 15 or 20 years.

This was the report prepared in January 2003. Then the final report was released on February 26, just about a month or so ago, on the 2010 Human Resources Planning Committee. Is it the final report to the January 2003 report?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it sort of amplifies the amount of interest and different groups doing different things. That report, the 2010 report, was based on a multistakeholder group that was focused specifically on just Olympic demand. We're trying to bring all of that together and make sure we've got a well-structured plan, if you like, so that it's not only focused on what we think the demands will be because of the Olympics but it's beyond 2010. I don't mean just beyond 2010 in respect to 2011 and 2012 and 2015 but beyond the scope of just the Olympics. It is another piece which we're actually trying to bring through.

I'm sure the member knows this from her past experience. When you start digging in and looking, there's a whole plethora of different agencies of training, be it federal, provincial or private. My view is that we could do a better job in coordinating that and getting the right information and the right people in the right places — and an earlier start to this as well.

In a different vein, if you go to the K-to-12 side and you look at the dropout rate in education in 10, 11 and 12, we often are and have…. This is kind of a society norm where mom and dad are more interested in their

daughter and son moving into a professional degree of some form rather than into the other skill sets and trades that are available. There needs to be a much greater awareness campaign, a familiarity process, built earlier on in the school system for young people to know those other opportunities. They still need their grade 12 graduation, and then perhaps — that practical side to it — a greater interest to stay in school up until grade 12 to get their graduation.

That is something the Ministry of Education is working on in a direct sense and that we are trying to coordinate in showing and demonstrating that there is a whole labour part. When you figure that there's that high rate of dropout from grades 10, 11 and 12…. It then reduces quite considerably several years after as those students come back into the school system and get their grade 12.

When you look at the ratio of those that graduate and go on to post-secondary education — we've got a great focus on post-secondary education — it actually then reflects almost 25 percent of those that have gone through K-to-12. Our view is that there needs to be a strategy which opens more doors, if you like, for children or young people going through K-to-12 to move into that skilled trade sector and know what opportunities there are.

There are great opportunities around. We need to identify the skills sets. We need to make sure that young people know that those opportunities are there as they move through earlier on in their education. But they still need grade 12. They need that baseline education to carry on in those other fields as well.

J. MacPhail: So the 2010 Human Resources Planning Committee has, as I understand it, the following ministries on it: Human Resources, Advanced Education, what was the bid secretary and now will be the Olympic organizing committee, Human Resources Development Canada, Tourism B.C., first nations, the Vancouver agreement and the Vancouver downtown east side community. Is the Minister of Skills Development and Labour the lead on this?

Hon. G. Bruce: That committee specifically was a one-time committee. I was not the lead. That has reported back. From the standpoint of taking that information and, as I was mentioning earlier, trying to develop a more comprehensive strategy, this ministry is the lead on that.

J. MacPhail: What's the budget for developing a more comprehensive strategy?

Hon. G. Bruce: At this point, it's within this ministry itself, with staff and the team that I currently have. It's much more of a coordinating role to begin with in gathering the information that each ministry provincially, federally and privately — and I shouldn't say private ministries but private industry and private training centres — is doing. From there, as we get the comprehension program in place then develop a strategy, which obviously is going to have a budget built around it, we'll be able to go forward.

J. MacPhail: Is there any allocation that the minister can tell me about inside his own ministry to do this?

Hon. G. Bruce: There are kind of two parts to this. If you look across the spectrum, there's about $2 billion dollars. That's not the part that this ministry is responsible for in a sense of developing the strategy. When you look through both the provincial and federal at what different programs are there, what we're trying to do within that staff component that I have within my direct ministry is to take all of that. It's actually much more of a coordinating role. We're trying to work through, as an ad hoc cross-ministry program initially, to have, first of all, identified all that is going on — to see the need that there should be a proper structure put in place that coordinates the work that's being done — and then build a structure around that of what's required and be able to coordinate that

Just as the member opposite is talking about, you've got 2010 sort of doing its thing out here — like "who's on first." You've got a number of private sector initiatives doing their thing over here. You've got the federal government that comes in and has its initiatives. We have the highest number of private sector training organizations in Canada here in the province, as the member opposite knows. That's everything from dog grooming to English as a second language. There's a full range, which all have a training component to them and are necessary.

Then, of course, there's the cross-ministry work, whether it's in advanced ed or K-to-12, human resource strategies within the Human Resources ministry. Initially what we're doing in this ministry is taking all of those pieces together with ministers and deputies and attempting to actually see what needs to be, and how it can be, better coordinated. Build a structure where it's necessary — if it's necessary, and I believe it will be — and then build a budget around that.

We're doing what you'd call the groundwork right now. We have been this last year and will be during the course of this next year trying to put all that together in a package that makes sense.

J. MacPhail: When will the package come…? When will it be an action plan — the package?

Hon. G. Bruce: I guess it's a question of terminology. Actually, I have an action plan right now that I'm working on. The first steps were to gather the information and bring through a coordinated plan.

Is it going to be May? Is it going to be September? Is it going to be October? At this point, I'm not in a position to say: "Here's one that's going to happen."

Does it need to be done, and done during the course of these ensuing months? Absolutely. I would hope to have something for next year's budgetary side,

if you're talking in that respect — of what the order would be, the order of magnitude. I don't know at this point, but for an actual plan, I would hope it's during the course of this next year.

Again, I'm sure the member opposite, from her experience in working in government…. Trying to ferret out information, whether it's in opposition or government, can be a challenge in itself as you try and break through other ministries, both provincial and federal, but we are currently working on it.

Action plan. There are some actions that are already taking place. I mean, it was very quickly identified in regard to the skill set for nursing shortages, so we embarked on that. We now have, I think, 1,800 additional spaces for nurse training in this province. Likewise with physicians. Those are two sides.

In regard to the not so specific but in a more general nature, the identification that we need to make available more seats in post-secondary education…. That's actually being rolled out as we speak in here, in regard to more seats in colleges and universities.

It's not a sort of start and stop or stage 1 or stage 5 or whatever. It is ongoing work. We're pushing out some of those things that we've identified and have seen a need and have been able to do through current ministries. But it'd be nice to have a nice little package all done up and say: "Here's where it is." Yeah, it would be. That's what we're working through to.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm asking is because on the minister's own website there are six points made about what happens if nothing is done about the skills shortage. Here's what they list from the minister's own website:

With those six key heads-ups about what inaction will result in, does the minister have a time line that would address those six points?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, obviously by our identification and having it on our website, first of all, there's concern expressed. Secondly, there are steps that we currently, as I've mentioned — I can list some more — are taking.

You do want to have a starting point. There has been a lot said. Talk about the flavour of the month. You can get out there and you can hear different groups claiming that they have shortages. They probably do. What I want to make sure is that either those shortages are not cyclical or they're not just regional — that they are in fact structural, because you would deal with them in different ways, obviously.

Again, I come back to how I would identify with my own children. I'd hardly want to go to them and say, "There's this great opportunity in this particular field, so go get all the training," and then find out that it was cyclical or it was regional in nature and people moved around. In some aspects of the workforce, it is regional by the simple fact — if you're talking about the construction side — of where that work happens to be taking place at the time.

In other instances, it's cyclical in the nature of just the work itself — the type of work in different phases. There's a greater demand for a two- or three-year period, then it starts to wane and others take in the baseline work that needs to be done.

From those six points, what government is saying here is that there is a huge opportunity from the standpoint of having job opportunities for people and working families in British Columbia — great opportunity. There's also an identification that if we were actually to train everybody that goes through K-to-12 and graduates and they had either some sort of post-secondary degree or an actual skill, we would still be short. I think we were still short by about 15 or 20 percent — the demand that we would need if you worked off that 685,000 job vacancy number that would work up to 2010, given that everybody retires when they're 65. I don't think that will be the case.

The issue is significant enough and the opportunity great enough that a proper comprehensive plan needs to be put in place. It isn't just changes in respect to the apprenticeship program. That's important; that's one component of it. Immigrant workers are another component of it.

If you looked at the workforce today, there would be many that would be, say, 40 years or older that actually have a practical skill but perhaps don't have the ticket or requirement the same way that a new person moving through the workforce today would require. Yet, in the particular sector or industry they're in, there's either a downsizing or a changing, but this other side is growing.

How do we allow the flexibility that…? That person that would probably break out into a cold sweat. I know I would if I had to go sit an exam to write all these things that are there for someone. Yet, they've actually been doing the practical work for a long time. You want to do that in such a way that you aren't deskilling the workforce, nor are you putting anybody at risk. That's not what we're talking about. But they actually have all the practical knowledge to do that.

You can actually see changes in the economy where people have that aptitude but they don't have the prescribed ticket. It's a small group, but how would you help them make that change?

We know we're all getting healthier. You know, you go into a room today, and the largest growing component is 80 years and older, and they're healthier than they've ever been before. We know that a lot of

The day where your job was the job you graduated with and then retired at is long gone. People are going to change their vocations two and three times. To allow for that skill set and experience to be continually utilized through the workforce is another challenge for us.

It's all of those things combined that we're trying to put in place here that would make sure those items, as the member opposite read out, are not occurrences. Those are very clearly tasks that we have to make sure are properly covered off, because what we want for everyone is a good, solid job in British Columbia and a good economy that's going along. To do that, you want people that are either well educated in a professional sense or highly skilled in the trade sense.

J. MacPhail: Let me take a practical example that is out in the future and see what the minister has to say in terms of meeting the test that he's outlined on his website of what happens if nothing is done about skills shortages.

The Winter Olympics 2010. We have had some discussion from the government about how there are going to be 130,000 person-years of employment. I wonder: does the minister know what that means in FTEs, actually?

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry, I don't. It's a combination of part-time and full-time. It would be substantial, but I couldn't give you a number at this point.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, FTEs takes into account full-time and part-time. If the minister could get that for me, I'd appreciate it, because I would assume that's part of human resource planning.

Hon. G. Bruce: I didn't have it; my staff had it. We see that at a low of approximately 128,000 and a high of approximately 131,000.

Hon. G. Bruce: Those are the FTEs we're talking about in respect to the Olympic component and capital projects.

J. MacPhail: That's scary, then, if the minister's telling me that he needs 130,000 FTEs to build the Olympics, because they ain't going to be available. That can't be the FTEs, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry — it's the person-years of employment. That means if I'm working for five years — I'm one person working five years — I get counted as five toward that number. It's not a trick question. I'm not trying to catch the minister out on anything.

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're talking about there is 132,000 jobs from this period forward in construction and during the 17 days of the Olympics up to 2013. That's the estimate we're forecasting relative to the Olympic experience. It's the construction that goes with that, and then obviously there's a high point of jobs during the last period of time running up to the Olympics that would have an additional lift in that respect.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not going to pursue it. I don't agree with the way the minister's describing it, but I'm not going to pursue it. It's not my main point.

The trade unions have been approaching various groups, including the government — I think they met with the deputy minister to the Premier — to suggest that the Sydney Olympics would be a good model for ensuring that the Olympics come in on budget, on time. The 2000 Summer Olympics were developed by a collaborative partnership that included not just industry but unions and local, state and national governments. Is the minister considering the unions' proposal around a similar collaborative partnership here?

Hon. G. Bruce: My staff and others are obviously in the early stages here. We know there's going to be a tremendous amount of work, not only in this phase of the Olympics but in the other aspects as the economy turns. We know we're going to need all of the players that we have in the province today and then more. Those chats are being had, and we'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: Who takes the lead on ensuring cooperation or the potential for a partnership? I think the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development is in charge of the Olympics, but who takes the lead on the labour agreements, labour arrangements, around the Olympics inside this government?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. There's more than the Olympics in all of this. We know….

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm sorry, I'm meaning around the Olympic construction. We know there's Olympic construction, but then there is commercial development, roads and highways construction, other industrial construction — all that's going to be taking place — all starting now, as it already is, working right through and up to the Olympics and beyond.

Whether it happens to be a specific Olympic venue, whether it's Kicking Horse Pass or whether it's a new sawmill up in Houston, all of those things together are what we're looking at from a standpoint of a human resource strategy. There's no question; there's not going to be any shortage of work. There is going to be a tremendous demand, and our aspect of what we're doing on the human resource side is to make sure we've got the appropriate supply. In the larger context — and that's why I use this definition of 2010 and beyond — we're trying to ensure that we have that skill set all the way through.

There are many components to this. There's the construction side, obviously. There's the service side, the tourism side that also fits with all of that, the road construction side and housing construction. Then there are just the rest of the other types of skill sets that we're working on that we know we need to have.

We are not being specific and focused on simply 2010 as it relates to the Olympics and the six or seven venues that need to be constructed. It's much greater, much more comprehensive than that. As those trades are working, they could very well be working in one aspect of construction that deals with the Olympics and another that is commercial, that's not specific to the Olympics per se. Perhaps because of the excitement and the worldwide attention and the economic initiatives that are taking place within this province, they are all part of that necessary workforce.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's grand vision, and I laud him for it. My question was specifically around the Olympics, but nevertheless, I'll take the grand vision.

Let me ask how the grand vision is matched inside his own ministry. I was reading the service plan last night, and I noted that…. The service plan goes up to '07, from now until 2007. It shows zero increase in ministry FTEs in the areas of skills development, employment standards, industrial relations or workers compensation. Who is taking the lead on all of this grand vision? It can't possibly be this minister, because he doesn't have the bodies to do it.

Hon. G. Bruce: I always like a challenge. I don't think there would be anybody in government today that would shortchange this little ministry in its capability for carrying a workload. I have — as there is through government — efficient staff. I'm actually very proud of the capability and the quantity and quality of work that's generated by the team that is in the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. I know the member opposite isn't reflecting on that at all.

Capacity comes in a number of ways. They're highly motivated, very well managed, have a good sense of what we're trying to achieve and have excellent management skills in being able to meet those objectives. I think one only needs to look back at the workload this little team has carried to know that I'm not just standing up here giving a pile of pump-up. It, in fact, speaks to the volume of work that's been done by this ministry.

Hon. G. Bruce: Last year we were at 451. In this current year going forward, it'll be 442. No, sorry — that's specific to the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. Often the WCB component gets in there, and as the member opposite knows, that's a zero or a dollar vote, and those numbers aren't reflected in there.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Can the minister outline, please, the changes at the executive director level — executive/director, executive of the ministry? I note new faces and there have been announcements. If the minister could just tell me who's in charge now…. Have there been any changes at the director level and above?

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry — I should have done that introduction. Rick Connolly is the new deputy minister to this ministry. Lee Doney, who has been and still is…. There is a bit of a transition that's taking place. Lee leaves us at the end of April. That's the significance of the personnel changes at the executive level.

J. MacPhail: Is the employment standards director the same and all those…? The minister is nodding yes.

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry — my director of policy has changed. Unfortunately, I lost her. You get a good person, and somebody else comes along and takes them, usually the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: The other stated goal of Skills Development is monitoring youth employment. What does the minister do to monitor youth employment?

Hon. G. Bruce: We track the labour force surveys on a monthly basis. Then, of course, you're looking anecdotally around this as to what's happening. Certainly, there are other things you look at. As an example, in the agricultural sector last year there were some 2,000 jobs that were virtually unfilled, really, on the berry-picking side. As the member opposite knows, there's a challenge in that particular sector, but those jobs are there.

What we've been attempting to do is to take a number of initiatives in respect to that sector of the agricultural industry and then, behind that, try to make — more for young people than others — an awareness that there are those jobs available to them, certainly in those months of May to September — a good time for them in that respect. So there are those types of other initiatives in that regard.

J. MacPhail: What is the labour force report over the last 12 months on youth unemployment — or last two years, let's say?

Hon. G. Bruce: Since December of 2001 to today, there are 14,000 more young people working in the workforce today than prior to 2001.

Hon. G. Bruce: The year ended with an unemployment rate for youth at 12.8 percent.

J. MacPhail: Is that up or down over the course of the year? Did it improve over the course…? Is this '03? I assume it's '03. Did it improve? What happened to it?

J. MacPhail: A 3 percent drop in the unemployment rate. It went from 15.8 to 12.8.

J. MacPhail: What's the latest report, the last labour force statistic out? I think they reported out — what? — March 11 or something?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah. I think it shows an unemployment rate of about 15 percent, 14.9 percent. Of course again, it comes down to…. You've got your cyclical nature of one month to the next for a variety of reasons. We try and work on a number that has more consistency to it and do our planning around any of that rather than a simple month up and down. It could be up one month and down the next month, depending on what you're looking at.

J. MacPhail: When it comes to unemployment, I always favoured downward trends myself, including the seasonal adjustments.

In the service plan of this minister, when talking about strategies to manage youth unemployment, it says: "Implementation of these strategies will require a cabinet decision." I thought that was an interesting statement. What's the time line here? I don't want the minister to tell me what cabinet is deciding — just what the time line is for implementation of these strategies to get a cabinet decision.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're working through on those things all of the time. What we're reflective of is what needs to be done. We're seeing, as the member opposite mentioned, that the trends are more important than the seasonally adjusted, so we think we're going in the right direction — the standpoint of a much stronger economy.

What we're also trying to track through and identify in the human resource strategy is…. As you look across the industrial world, you'll see that a so-called youth unemployment number relative to the unemployment number of the entire workforce — apart from one country, and I think it was Germany — seems to always track higher. One thing that does become obvious, though, is that as the overall economy improves, that number tracks down. Then within that component is a group of young people that, regardless of what that number would be tracking up or down, need different types of strategies to assist them to get back into the workforce. That's what we're working through in regard to the overall human resource strategy.

J. MacPhail: If that decision is made in cabinet, does this minister take the lead on a decision being put to cabinet — the Minister of Skills Development and Labour? I mean, I just thought it was a curious statement in a service plan. Does the minister take the lead on any cabinet decision?

J. MacPhail: The service plan notes — I'm at page 10 — that the ministry "has limited funding for the skills development policy area," and that this limited funding, which looks to me to be about $1 million, includes the salary of a full-time labour economist. What other staff work in the skills development branch? Could the minister outline for me the personnel of the skills development branch?

J. MacPhail: Okay, and I assume that it's not a full…. There's an ADM to whom the economist reports, and that ADM would have other responsibilities. Okay, so we've got the labour economist.

Is there any other area of government that's dedicated to addressing the skills shortage and the human resource planning?

Hon. G. Bruce: There is to a great extent, and this is the role we're trying to bring together. You've got PSEC. You've got different strategies that are in fact being worked through in specific ministries in their own right. We think they need to be better coordinated than they have. Everybody's doing their work specific to their interest, but we think that could be better coordinated. That's what this shop is trying to do.

The work that's out there…. I guess I had mentioned to you, I think it's nearly $2 billion, federal-provincial — never mind on the private side. There is a tremendous amount of resources that go into this. What's the actual net benefit? What's the outcome by all of that which is taking place, and how could it be better coordinated, better targeted to where the demand is and the opportunities are for people to get into the workforce — either get back into the workforce or get into the workforce for their first time?

I want to start off with a case, please. It's a letter that I received from Buzz Hargrove, the president of

the Canadian Auto Workers. It's an issue that I am not familiar with. He copied me on a letter that he'd sent to the Premier. It's about compassionate care leave, and therefore it has to do with employment standards.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just to be clear on this, at this point we're not intending as a government to tell employers what they need to do in this respect. We have to realize that right at the moment, the Employment Standards Act currently provides for unpaid leave for pregnancy and parental leave, family responsibility leave, bereavement leave and jury duty. The allotments for pregnancy and parental leave are harmonized with the federal EI benefits.

If an employer, at this point, wishes to extend the compassionate leave — and right now there are up to five days in that respect — the employee can still receive those benefits through EI. It's enabling. It's not requiring that we need to do this.

We're monitoring to see…. We think that at this point there is a lot of opportunity for employers and employees to work this out and that from the standpoint of the compassionate side that we find ourselves in from time to time — all of us — there is an opportunity there for it to be looked after.

J. MacPhail: Let me just go through this. The federal government has provided changed EI benefits to allow for compassionate care leave after great discussion amongst Canadians and recommendations from various health care studies — the Romanow report, the Kirby report. But in order to access the benefits, which are EI benefits, the worker needs leave from the job.

In nine other jurisdictions in this country, governments of all political stripes across those nine other jurisdictions have legislated provision under the employment standards for access to that compassionate care leave. This government is saying that they're not going to do that? They're going to say to a Starbucks worker: "You've got to work that out with your employer"?

Hon. G. Bruce: I am continuing to monitor this. Again, I have to refer back to the opportunities there that are currently covered. Simply put, at this point, if employers were to grant that compassionate leave, the employee could take advantage of the EI benefits.

Of course, there's the other part that's not under this. That's in respect to collective agreements. Whatever is in collective agreements would be that for compassionate leave. In those areas that have been negotiated for compassionate leave, those would stand the test.

In our instance, relative to those without collective agreements, I'm monitoring it. I'm not about to rush there. I am aware of what's taking place across Canada, but at this point, as I also look at what we already have…. I haven't found this to be an issue in the workforce at this point. I haven't heard from people about this. I would expect that on the compassionate side, most employers — I know in my instance — would look after that person and the EI.

At this point, I appreciate it — what the federal government came out with. As a government, we've made no determination to proceed with this. I am monitoring it, though.

J. MacPhail: I always love the way this government wants to be first for business but last for working people. Everything the government does for business is: "We've got to have the lowest and the best and the least intrusive." When it comes to working people, it's: "Oh. Talk to your employer about it."

Now, Mr. Chair, here's the history of this. This compassionate care leave flows from the federal Liberal government to accommodate a very costly trend in the health care system about end-of-life care. That's the most expensive part of our health care system. There has been recommendation after recommendation across various provincial and federal studies that legislated compassionate care leave accommodates end-of-life care by a family, where the family doesn't have to bear the burden of having to be off work.

Does the employer have to pay for this? No. It's now a legislated employment insurance benefit. It saves money for the health care system because the compassionate care leave doesn't have to be done in an institutional setting at a cost to the taxpayer. It's also just the right thing to do for families.

Nine other jurisdictions have legislated in their employment standards acts the right of access to this as unpaid leave, and then the workers can claim EI. What this minister is saying is: "If you're an immigrant worker at a Starbucks, you have to go to your own employer if your mom is dying and hope the employer will give you the leave." Mr. Chair, this benefit came into effect January of this year. Is the minister saying he actually wants to be dead last in compassionate care leave in this country?

Hon. G. Bruce: I hold myself back a little bit in responding to some of your preamble — noting it's quarter after 11 — and I'm sure we don't want to go down that road, so I'll try.

At any rate, I have different information than you in the number of provinces, jurisdictions, that have signed on with this. I'd note that Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and Yukon have changed their employment standards. Others are looking at it. Alberta, at this point, has not. They have no plans for this coverage. I think there's kind of a mix out there.

Let's be clear. As I understand it, employers can still grant this to their employees. They can apply to EI and they're looked after. It's not that people can't take the opportunity of it; they can. At this point, it's between the employer and the employee. As I said, I'm monitoring it and looking at this. I will keep an eye on it to see how significant a problem it is as it currently flows. If it becomes a significant issue in that respect, well then, government will do what it needs to do.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. This government is fine to be first for business needs and last for employee needs. What this minister just said is: "If your mom is dying and you're working at a minimum wage job, go to your employer and ask him or her to give you the right to go home and look after your mom." Other jurisdictions, nine jurisdictions, have legislated this. I'll get the number for the exact jurisdictions for the minister. Nine jurisdictions have legislated it to date, and this minister says: "No, we're not going to do it."

They're saying to Kuldeep: "Go ask the employer for leave." If the employer says: "No, sorry. We're not going to do anything about it," and the government is monitoring this…. Okay, let's see how they're monitoring this. How are they going to monitor it? If there's no employment standards legislation, the worker has nothing to complain about, has no issue to bring forward. How's the minister monitoring this?

Hon. G. Bruce: Apart from the letter from Buzz Hargrove, that's been all the reaction there has been in respect to this particular issue.

In fact, this government has done a lot for employees. We just finished canvassing a whole section on skilled trades. We canvassed a whole section on job demand, employee demand. A funny thing happens. As the economy gets stronger and as people are in demand for jobs, they also then have a much greater balance of their demands, if you like, in the whole aspect of whether they're going to work at this place at ten bucks an hour or work at that place at $15 or that one at $20 because there's a demand for their services.

We know that in that whole issue that we just canvassed in respect to the human resource strategy, that aspect of things is going to change dramatically. Employers also know that from the standpoint of training for their people, regardless of the type of vocation, it is a high cost. You want to keep your people. When you get a group working with you that are well trained and efficient, you don't want to lose those people.

Then you have to look at all other aspects. Some of it is dollars and cents in regard to what you pay; some of it is around the benefits; some of it is just how you work together with one another. Not always does it require the government to say: "Thou shalt do this." The greatest lever, if you like, is having a job demand that outstrips the workforce. That's where we're going.

It's very clear that we're going to have more jobs than people in this province. We already have that in certain sectors right now. That, in itself, is the greatest lever and the greatest benefit for working families. This government has been very focused on trying to get the economy turned around, to provide the job opportunities to give those working families the security they need to be able to build their families and keep their homes and live in their smaller communities.

This aspect is one part of a package that's there, recently introduced by the federal government. Fine. The jurisdictions…. I'm not going to quibble whether it's seven or nine. There are seven that I listed. There are several others that are actively reviewing it. I don't think they've passed it yet. They may have, but that doesn't matter.

The fact is that we will continue to look at this. If it becomes evident that it is required by regulation or legislation to provide those types of opportunities, I'd have a good look at that and decide whether I should be moving forward with it. At this point I don't see that there is that necessity.

J. MacPhail: No, this government never sees the necessity to be on the cutting edge for working families and what issues, what stresses they feel. This government likes to reduce the disposable income of families, which happened last year under this government. No, I'm sorry. It was flat, zero — a full year of flat disposable income. Average weekly wages went down under this government. Oh, there may be jobs, but the jobs aren't adding to the payroll of this province.

Let's see how these people are going to complain. What's happening in terms of the budget and the FTEs for the employment standards branch this year?

Hon. G. Bruce: There are a couple of points. Actually, hourly wages have gone up.

Hon. G. Bruce: Hourly wages went up from $17.50, I think, to $19.20 over the course of the last two years. Weekly wages — and I'm double-checking right now — went up. I just talked about it last night. I think $658 was the average weekly wage, and now it's $672. Anyway, work from whatever sheet you have.

With respect to the budget question that I think you asked of me, the FTEs in employment standards in '03-04 were 116. Was that the question you asked of me?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yep. It was 116, and this year it will be 108. The budget was $13.519 million in '03-04, and it goes to $10.042 million in '04-05.

V. Roddick: The berry industry plays a significant role in my riding and contributes over $80 million to the British Columbia economy and, therefore, our budget. There is a concern among berry growers that not enough people are interested in working on our farms, resulting in a declining pool of farm labourers. Every other province in Canada allows seasonal migrant workers in accordance with a federal government program.

Can the minister describe what strategies have been developed to deal with the declining pool of farmworkers? What is being done to ensure that this valuable industry will not be left to wither on the vine, because we still have to eat to live?

Hon. G. Bruce: Of all the sectors of my job, this is the one that causes me the greatest concern relative to vulnerable workers. We've embarked upon a different approach than was being taken before. First of all, I have no time for anybody that doesn't understand that when you hire somebody, you're supposed to pay them. I think if there's one mantra we've hammered home and home again in this ministry during the course of the last three years, that's one thing that's not going to be tolerated.

There are some inherent difficulties within the berry-picking industry relative to the labour pools that are there. Part of it is education — people understanding what their rights are and knowing what their rights are. Part of it is language. There are a fair amount of people that have English as a second language, and very minimally at that.

We embarked upon a program where we have gone to requiring that all farm labour contractors, firstly, are bonded. Secondly, they have to have a direct-deposit system in process for their employees. There are a series of fines through employment standards for when people do not fulfill those obligations. There are also bonding commitments. If we find that a farm labour contractor is in contravention…. Their bonding requirements are at a level. As long as they continue to be in compliance, those bonding levels will and can be reduced.

First and foremost, if you want to make sure you have a labour force that's there to be sustainable, you've got to make sure you're living up to the obligations and responsibilities of paying people. That's through the farm labour contractors. We involved the entire agricultural community — all of the sectors, including the berry sector. We've worked with them in developing a memorandum of understanding of those principles that need to be adhered to; a very specific program of farm and site attendance with staff from the employment standards branch, again, being cognizant of the language difficulties so that the people going out there can actually speak the language of those they're trying to deal with; and then an aggressive communication program so that people then understand their rights.

This is not new to this ministry or to this sector in the course of the last two or three years. This has been a problem and a challenge for some time. I would hope that the day I leave this particular ministry, if there's one thing I'll be able to look back on, it's that we have gone a long way to fixing this situation.

In respect to the migrant worker, I come back to the fact that if you don't pay people and pay people properly and what they're supposed to be paid, it's difficult to keep that workforce there. Philosophically, I have difficulty in developing a program of immigrant workers when we have people within this province, able-bodied people, that could actually do this work.

What I have been working on with the agricultural community — because, again, it's kind of a two-fold thing…. The immigrant worker program — and this is with Mexican workers, actually — is a full-fledged operational program that other jurisdictions currently utilize. I think Ontario utilizes it. There are employee groups — labour contractors, if you put it that way, I guess — in Mexico that have the ability to bring people up. They fly them up here. They're looked after in the aspect of room and board. They're given certain other privileges in respect to their time here.

I also understand the demand within the agricultural community, so what we're currently working on is a pilot parallel of all that is done in respect to the immigrant worker program. I would like to see a similar program that would be designed for Canadians, British Columbians, so that if you're providing housing and these other aspects of things to bring immigrant workers in, then you do the same thing for the Canadian workers.

My point is that if after that, on the pilot, there is still a shortage of Canadian workers and that Canadians just basically — British Columbians — don't want to work on the farms, then that's been demonstrated. If it is that the immigrant worker program is such that it provides a better opportunity for people and the Canadians would have taken advantage of that given they had that same opportunity, then I wouldn't want us to be bringing in immigrant workers rather than redesigning what's happening on the farm for our British Columbian workers. I'm currently working with the Ministry of Agriculture at this point and with the agricultural sector. I understand the demand for workers, but there are complications with all this.

I might just say that in another aspect, in a larger sense, we in Canada have low food costs relative to the rest of the world. We love to have the agricultural community. We speak in glowing terms. We bring all sorts of things to that discussion and that debate. One of the things we don't recognize is the cost of producing food. It is a push-and-pull in that respect too. Consumers don't want their milk to go up but don't have a problem walking across and paying 26 bucks for a bottle of rum. It's a little bit harsh, but it's all part of that because you have these people working back on the farm and you need to produce this. You get all of these other types of issues to work through.

Cognizant of the fact that there is a demand…. I think there were some 2,000 job vacancies, if my memory is correct, in last year's workforce. I think it was

specifically on the berry side. The challenge there is that we know we have British Columbians and we know we have able bodies that can actually go and do that work, so how then to match the program so that we have an agricultural community and sector that grows and flourishes?

The agricultural sector in my community is a very large component of our local economy. It's not berry-picking, but it's a big sector. We need to, perhaps, approach this problem a little differently than how we have been to date — or the last little while. That's why I've made these particular changes specific to the immigrant worker, if I can do a parallel as a pilot. Here's what we do with immigrant workers from Mexico, and we'll do exactly the same thing for Canadian workers or B.C. workers. Let's see, then, what those problems are.

V. Roddick: Could you just elaborate? Am I understanding it right? You're doing the pilot project, so are there going to be some immigrant workers allowed in, or are you just setting up the same perks, if you will, for the Canadian workforce? My concern and the industry's concern is the fact that we see a huge shortage looming in this upcoming season. We're hoping that the minister can be prepared to act on that shortage.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not sure whether we'll meet this year's demand. What I've been saying to the agricultural community in a cooperative process is that I'm prepared to look at, to bring through, a parallel program, say, as a pilot. Again, because this is a federal process — it isn't the provincial side of it — we may not be able to achieve the time line to get this and put in place for this upcoming year. As we sit here and talk about it, between the Ministry of Agriculture and ourselves, we're currently working on this.

It was meant to be a pilot and a parallel so that you would have both. Perhaps you were bringing in 100 immigrant workers from Mexico; then we want 100 or so Canadian or British Columbian workers. If they're living on the farm — the immigrant workers — and those types of needs have to be provided, then I want the same thing in respect to the B.C. workers, because what I hear back is that often we get people working on the farm and then they don't show up, whereas if they're immigrant workers, they're living on the farm, and they're already there.

I don't want to have any of the variables in there. If this works for immigrant workers in Ontario, as it does, and if we provided the same bases for British Columbians, then it should work for British Columbians as well. If it doesn't, then you've clearly got this problem that people don't want to work on the farms.

I'm not prepared to just go and bring in immigrant workers. What I thought was a good way to test this was to just do exactly the same. The only difference is that you're not flying them into Vancouver as you would be flying people in from Mexico. The best we possibly could do would be to parallel the two and just see what our problems are in that regard. If it's working, then maybe the whole industry takes a different approach on how it develops its labour force for the agricultural sector.

J. MacPhail: I have a question along the same lines, so I'm just going to continue on this. It's not to deal with farmworkers. I was going to wait and raise it a bit later, but it matches what the minister is saying.

Apparently, last week, March 16, the Iron Workers Union, Local 97, protested outside the federal building in Vancouver, the Human Resources Skills Development Canada, to protest a recent decision that permits cheap U.S. workers in Canada. The federal government allowed a company…. I want to make this accurate here. What is the company?

The decision to allow Lower Mainland Steel Ltd. to hire 50 U.S. iron workers as rodmen, they're called, is the second time foreign workers' visas have been approved for construction workers in the last few months. In December building trades unions protested a decision by Human Resources Skills Development Canada that led to foreign worker visas for 11 New Delhi workers to dismantle a pulp mill in Gold River.

Then they do say: "It's completely outrageous that the federal government will permit foreign workers to take our jobs. We've got over 200 hundred workers sitting in the iron workers' hall," said Perley Holmes, the business manager for Iron Workers Local 97.

I thought, given the minister's comment, that he would prefer to have people — British Columbians or people who live in Canada — get jobs here if they're available. What, if anything, can the minister do around this?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah. Good case in point. I guess in the agricultural sector it's almost…

Hon. G. Bruce: …the reverse. Clearly, we want to — and this is the whole thing about that whole human resource strategy — have British Columbians there that can do the work. Now, as I understand that point — because when it came up, we looked into it — they have to, in their approach to the federal government, demonstrate that they have canvassed across Canada, that there aren't people that are prepared to do that work. It has to be at the same rate scale that's being offered in Canada.

I was under the impression that although the company had advertised, they'd yet to fill anybody. I'm also led to believe, and I don't have the facts right at the moment, that the federal agency hadn't given full and complete approval to it. Regardless, that's not the issue here. The issue here is how we make sure that we

have the skilled trades — or the agricultural workers, in that instance — being able to do the work that is here in British Columbia. I found it quite incredible that if we're talking about rodmen — I think they're the rebar guys that work in construction — we wouldn't have a whole lineup now.

I'd heard other conflicting comments, and often we do in these issues. It's a you said–I said–he said–she said type of situation where it was quite open for the unions to send members over, but they didn't particularly want to for internal or whatever reasons between the two unions. I can't answer all that. Those are things they'll have to deal with.

If there is an in-house restriction being applied for people's own reasons, that's one thing. If it's simply the other — that we haven't done a good enough job of making sure Canadians are aware there are jobs here, and they're well paid and, "We need you to come and work," — that's altogether a different scenario. It really is, in a sense, one and the same.

I understand in the agricultural sector; in many areas, the difficulty of getting British Columbians to work on the farms. I also understand that in certain sectors there have been problems within those sectors, which, for anybody looking at it, would make you understand that's why you can't get people to work there. The challenge has been to try and work back and forth with farm labour contractors, producers themselves and then people in and on the fields.

Again, I mention that the difficulty there, in many ways, is people understanding what their rights are. It's a difficult issue. I think we're making progress on that, but I am not about to launch out into a full-fledged immigrant worker program without first fully demonstrating that there is a case to be made that British Columbians, given the same type of benefits or whatever would be in an immigrant worker program, wouldn't work on those farms.

J. MacPhail: Just my final question on this matter before we rise, Mr. Chair: does HRDC consult with any government officials at the provincial level before they issue these permits?

Hon. G. Bruce: Specific to your question, on this issue HRDC did not speak to us.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving to another new topic, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY