Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 4, Skilled Trades Act.

In Committee of Supply in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — SKILLED TRADES BC ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

On clause 1.

G. Kyllo: I’m not sure if the minister wanted to make some opening comments at the start of committee stage. No? Okay. Great.

It’s certainly my privilege and honour to stand as the critic with the responsibility for Labour and Skills Training. It’s a very important piece of legislation. This is a reintroduction, for the most part, of legislation that was in place back in the 1990s. It was subsequently repealed by the previous government.

I certainly have some very in-depth questioning of the minister, with respect to the challenges that we have, actually, in the workplace in B.C. right now, with the availability of skilled tradesworkers.

As the minister and the government have indicated, there’s a significant shortage of skilled workers in the province currently. Especially as we start to come out of COVID, we are seeing a real shortage of workers in general available, not just skilled workers but workers in general.

Many businesses and shops are finding extreme difficulty in finding the necessary workers in order to keep their businesses running, so it’s going to be really important, as we go through this line of questioning, to have a better understanding of what kinds of data and research the minister and this government undertook to have a good understanding of what the implications are going to be on the availability of workers in order to meet the challenges of a worker shortage in the province currently.

I just want to again thank the minister and their staff for the original briefing that was provided to my colleague the member for Cariboo South, who actually participated in that. I was away for a few weeks, and I’m just really happy to be back in the Legislature and having this opportunity to make a series of inquiries on this particular piece of legislation.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we look to section 1, I’m wondering if the minister can share with this House what level of consultation and stakeholder engagement was undertaken, not just with the broader industry sectors that’ll be impacted by this legislation but also with First Nations communities around the province, in contemplating and bringing forward this piece of legislation.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member for Shuswap for being part of our committee today.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are with me today. I have Bindi Sawchuk, who is assistant deputy minister for workforce development and skills training. As well, I have Tony Loughran, acting assistant deputy minister for governance and corporate planning; as well as Emily Cronin, executive director of workforce development and skills training; and Kelly Fitzsimonds, senior legislative analyst. Thank you so much for supporting me today.

I’m also looking forward to having a great conversation about skills trades training, and thank you so much for your initial thoughts. I know that we have a skilled trade workers shortage in British Columbia, and this is exactly what our act seeks to do — to strengthen our trades model that we have here in British Columbia.

The ten recommended trades that we are recommending to STC were chosen based on several criteria, including minimizing negative impact on the labour supply in key industries. The social and economic analysis conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates that labour shortages for these ten trades would be minimal, less than 1 percent.

In terms of the question on consultation, we conducted extensive engagement on skilled trade certification over the summer and fall of 2021, with a goal of learning how we can best support workers, employers and Indigenous communities to transition to skilled trade certification. Our ministry’s engagement approach consisted of four streams: employers and apprentices, the broader public, Indigenous communities and industry stakeholder representatives.

[2:55 p.m.]

Who did we hear from? We heard from 130 employers, apprentices and other organizations that participated in eight round table discussions, balancing rural and urban representation. Also, 54 Indigenous people in seven dialogue sessions and one-on-one meetings.

AEST staff also met with several key Indigenous partners to gain further insight into potential impacts of implementation of STC — for example, IAHLA and FNESC; as well, 30 one-on-one meetings with stakeholder representatives with the Parliamentary Secretary for Skills Training, including labour organizations, industry associations, PSIs, student groups, First Nations and non-public trainers; and lastly, over 860 participants in an online survey with broad representation of training system participants.

M. Lee: To join my colleague here, I just wanted to probe a little further, if I may, in terms of the nature of the consultation with the Indigenous communities and peoples. I know that in appendix A of one of the consultation reports there is the listing of the 54 bodies, associations and First Nations, that were consulted with.

Could I ask, first, were the other First Nations and Indigenous communities in this province that are not listed here, on this list, also consulted?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member from Langara for that question. Skilled trade certification engagement was conducted in the spirit of building lasting reconciliation and respecting our obligation under the Declaration Act. We consulted with the First Nation Leadership Council and Métis Nation B.C. on how to best engage with all First Nations.

Based on their guidance, we reached out to all First Nations, Métis and Indigenous service organizations and offered multiple opportunities for input, including community dialogues, input into the survey and opportunities for one-on-one meetings or written submissions.

M. Lee: I am going to turn to article 19 and 21 of DRIPA in a moment, but I just wanted to confirm my understanding. From what the minister said, it sounded like the nature of the consultation with Indigenous communities and First Nations in this province, over 204, which are not listed here on appendix A to the consultation document, was based on notification.

Could I ask the minister to confirm that the nature of consultation was relying upon notification of the opportunity but not actually direct engagement and consultation. Is that correct?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I’m very proud of the work that we have done to consult with Indigenous stakeholders from all aspects of trades, and we will continue to do so. So yes, there was a direct notification to all First Nations and MNBC, with multiple opportunities to provide input. We also followed up with phone calls and emails.

M. Lee: Well, given the time that I have to probe this level of consultation, I’m sure that…. It’s surprising for something as important as this, given the nature of the level of response. By my count, there are probably 40 First Nations out of 204 that actually responded and that actually had direct engagement or consultation.

When we look at article 21 of DRIPA, it talks about the fact that “Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including…in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining….”

Is it the government’s view that what is being brought forward under Bill 4 is done without discrimination against Indigenous peoples and their right under article 21 of UNDRIP?

Hon. A. Kang: In response to that, I just want to let the member know and just refresh his memory that when the current act, which is the act brought forward by the members of the opposition when they had the opportunity to be in government…. The ITA Act was brought forward, and there were no consultations done. In the spirit of reconciliation, we are consulting, and we have given multiple opportunities for emails and follow-up.

[3:05 p.m.]

The proposed legislation is related to article 21, subsection 1 of UNDRIP and the right to improve economic and social conditions, including vocational training and retraining, and as requiring consultation and cooperation under section 3 of the Declaration Act.

This is what we are trying to solve with this legislation today: introducing the skilled-trades certification model in B.C. It is about putting workers first, all workers here in British Columbia, to help address the needs of our changing economy now and for the future as we build a stronger, more inclusive economy in B.C.

In 2003, the previous government introduced legislation which eliminated compulsory trade requirements, transitioning B.C. to a voluntary certification model. Therefore, the current model has led to a trades workforce in which thousands of workers have no formal recognition of those skills and trades. These workers are often paid less, they have lower rates of employment stability, and they have challenges in mobility, as well. This is what we are trying to solve.

As well, what we are doing here, as our bill, will help ensure that we have enough trades workers by breaking down barriers to keep underrepresented and equity-seeking groups such as women, Indigenous people and new immigrants from becoming certified and increasing the prestige of the trades to draw more youth into these careers. This will shift the conversation so that the trades are recognized as critical and valuable careers in our society — trades careers in the long term; community building; good-paying, green jobs that support families and communities.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. I’m sure that, in terms of the overall foundations of the bill, the member from Shuswap will have the opportunity, at length, with the minister to discuss.

I want to address the first point that the minister made in terms of the act that was previously brought in by the previous government. This fails to recognize that, as I’ve been saying in the role that I have as a critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, this government still does not understand what we did in this House 27 months ago when we adopted, unanimously, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

That sets a new standard on this government. So the level of consultation that I’m referring to is not the standard that was set by the previous government, as good as it was. We’re talking about an increased standard and the failure by this government to meet that standard. We’re still waiting for the action plan, and it’s 27 months later.

But coming back to the impact on Indigenous peoples. It’s referred to on page 26 of the broader survey on public engagement that when the question was asked, “Do you identify as urban Indigenous…?” I presume that the response of 40 percent came from the 60 respondents who identified themselves as, or as the survey identified as, Indigenous.

Am I to take it that, in the so-called engagement that this government has done, based on 60 individuals who responded online, 40 percent of them are urban Indigenous? What is that? We’re talking, well, 20 people, I suppose — 20 people are urban Indigenous, and 40 people are not. That is the reliance and this is the level of survey that this government has done. Is that correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We have met the standard for engagement. So with skilled trade certification engagement, as I said before, we conducted engagement in the spirit of building lasting reconciliation and respecting our obligation under the Declaration Act. We continue to do that every step of the way in different types of programming, but especially in this entire process.

Like I said before, we did consult with the First Nation Leadership Council and MNBC on how to best engage with First Nations. We got that guidance, we got their advice, and then we moved forward. Based on their guidance, we reached out to all First Nations, Métis and Indigenous service organizations, and we offered multiple opportunities for input, which included community dialogues, input into the survey and opportunities for one-on-one meetings or written submissions.

We are deeply committed to the input engagement with Indigenous people, and my ministry will continue and will ensure that we act to fulfil our obligations. The Indigenous engagement was conducted between July 2021 and January 2022. Draft legislation was shared with Indigenous leadership for comment, and feedback was received prior to finalizing the bill.

For example, a requirement for the ITA to consult with representatives of Indigenous peoples on the development and the implementation of the strategic plan and a new object statement were added to affirm Skilled Trades B.C.’s strategic mandate to promote participation of Indigenous people in the industry training and apprenticeship system, including to encourage Indigenous people to register in and to complete apprenticeship programs.

M. Lee: While I appreciate the response from the minister, there are a variety of questions that arise from that. But let me just say that…. I’ll make one comment in response. The standard that the minister speaks about, in terms of the level of consultation under DRIPA…. I wait for the government to show us and demonstrate what that is, because I have not heard. The standard of consultation, I don’t expect, is just based on notification. I think that they, with respect, have lots of challenges in that area.

Let me ask, though. On page 10 of the consultation report with Indigenous peoples, it refers, of course, to a number of barriers that Indigenous peoples have to accessing training, including child care, being in remote communities and also barriers associated with driver’s licences. I wonder whether this level of consultation is actually met and has actually raised up these concerns and what level of assessment there’s been done by the ministry on what the baseline is, in terms of this change under this act. How is this proposed bill going to address these barriers?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Through the consultation, we have heard from Indigenous stakeholders and Indigenous people who are in the trades that they do not want to default to the racism of low expectations. They want to be challenged. They want to participate in the trades, and we have put into place supports for everyone to be successful and for everyone to be part of the economy.

Skilled-trades certification requires us to break down barriers that already exist in the system and create more opportunities for all workers. Our plan is to introduce supports and resources that directly address complex factors such as racism and sexism in the workplace; proximity to post-secondary training; as you have talked about, there’s child care; but as well, access to transportation; low essential skills and limited financial resources.

Examples of supports include: apprenticeship advisers, and we have hired several who are of Indigenous background; understanding the culture; financial supports; increasing training close to home; educational programs and training to change behaviour on the worksite and in the classroom; and essential skills training, upgrading and exam-writing supports. We know all of these are needed, and we’re going to make sure that all people are successful as they go into their journey.

Overcoming these barriers with supports opens more doors to good-paying and mobile jobs that support families, provide equal opportunity for underrepresented and equity-seeking groups and recognize trades workers as critical and valuable to our province.

M. Lee: What is the breakdown of Indigenous peoples who are working in rural communities that are going to be affected by this new training regime? What is the actual number, and what is the baseline figure around where they reside?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We don’t have that level of breakdown or the number breakdown that you’re looking for. We do know that there are approximately 8,000 uncertified workers employed across the ten recommended trades, out of a total of 64,000.

These trades were specifically chosen because of the relatively low uncertified workers and in order to minimize the potential disruption of labour supply and training seat capacity — that’s rural and urban as well — especially when we look towards COVID-19 economic recovery. So we were very deliberate in our casework and in our studies of the ways that we can be supportive.

M. Lee: This is the time that I have to participate in this committee process, and we haven’t really gotten into the identification of the baseline that I was looking for, for Indigenous peoples in this province.

If I can take one more example. I’m just trying to assess what the government…. The government says that they’re going to provide additional supports to Indigenous peoples in order to meet the new requirements under this act. I’m not hearing about the definition around what that is.

If I take, for example, the challenge around Indigenous peoples who have a barrier around drivers’ licences. What is the percentage, then, of Indigenous people that are going to be requiring the training under this act who do not have a driver’s licence? And what is the estimated cost, by this government, in terms of how they’re going to assist Indigenous peoples in order to obtain those drivers’ licences? Of course, you need to get those drivers’ licences in order to reach the training or even the jobsite.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I know the member opposite is asking about the supports that we have. I’m happy to answer that question, but I would like to remind the member that we are on section 1. It’s on definition and interpretation. The section does just only define the terms that are meant to have specific meaning for the purpose of the Skilled Trades BC Act. The question that you’re asking right now pertains to implementation, but I’m happy to answer that question for you.

The supports that we are putting in place we are very proud of. It is to support all British Columbians who want to be part of trades to be successful. We are committed to ensuring that all workers can become certified and benefit from certification.

Some of the supports that we have invested in are the 25 apprenticeship advisers who offer direct support to apprentices, employers and communities in every region of the province. That also includes Indigenous communities. As I have said before, we also specifically made a very thoughtful process to make sure that we do hire Indigenous apprenticeship advisers and those in different regions to serve that purpose.

We also have an expanded customer service team to answer questions, support registration and schedule exams as well as connect Indigenous trades workers with Indigenous departments within PSIs and Indigenous education organizations to access individualized supports. Also, we have Indigenous community-based training programs to ensure Indigenous learners can receive training close to home, access mentors as well as have driver’s licence training.

There are currently 16 programs being delivered, with an additional 22 under development. We will continue to do that work that is needed, but we will continue to consult on what kinds of services are helpful and are also needed. We’ll continue to develop…. This is not a beginning or an end process. This is a journey that we’ll be on together.

We have a dedicated completions team to work one-on-one with apprentices who may need additional support to complete the necessary requirements, including refresher training, tutoring, additional learning and examination preparation. We also have support and accommodations to complete the certification program, which includes pre-exam, one-on-one support such as guidance and assistance, learning plans and resources, and exam-writing accommodations such as increased additional writing time, assistive reading technology, private sittings or translation support.

Also, we have streamlined the application and verification process for uncertified trades workers applying to challenge the certification exam. We also have virtual tools to support apprentices with low essential skills and/or learning disabilities to be more successful in technical training.

We also have programs connecting apprentice trades workers to ESL supports and access to a suite of financial supports and incentives, including grants, tax credits and loans, as well as distance and flexible learning options for technical training.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[3:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: To help inform the decision-making for the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, they engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to assess the potential impacts of mandatory certification. In their report, it actually identified that mandatory certification is likely to lead to a net decrease in labour supply. It continues on with indicating that some uncertified workers are likely to leave the trades labour force, which may lead to a further reduction in labour market outcomes.

How does the ministry reconcile a report that the government has engaged on the impacts of mandatory certification with the object of the corporation, where the report clearly indicates that this particular bill will lead to a net decrease in labour supply?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member opposite for asking this question. This is a very good question.

We’ve been transparent with our research and the process leading up to the Skilled Trades BC Act.

As I have said before, we have a long list of supportive services to support someone in exploring the journey, for someone to be going through a journey or for them to be recertified or fully certified. We do believe that with the right supports, all uncertified trades workers can become certified. That’s why we did the consultation, and we went out to talk to people. “What do you need? What are the gaps that you see?”

In addition, we expect to have the flexibility to provide special temporary work authorizations or exemptions for some workers should this need be identified during their engagement.

G. Kyllo: The Ernst and Young report. I think the minister referenced earlier in her commentary a less than 1 percent impact for the ten recommended trades that are set forward in this bill. If I look to the report that was undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, appendix C sets out a fairly lengthy and in-depth table setting out all of the different trades. It sets out the apprenticeship share of employment, also identified a journeyperson’s share of employment and then also lists, in the last column, an uncertified share of employment. Now, I’m assuming, and it’s my understanding, that this represents workers that are currently working in these specific trades that currently do not have any certification levels.

The minister had indicated that with the initial ten trades that were identified, there was less than a 1 percent potential impact. But as I look through the list, the ten trades that have been identified….

[3:35 p.m.]

For example, motor vehicle body repairs. It indicates that currently the apprenticeship share of employment is only 6 percent. The journeyperson share is estimated currently at only between 43 and 64 percent. The uncertified share….There’s a big range here, and I understand that these estimates were actually provided by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training. It indicates that the uncertified share of employment, just for that particular job sector…. The range is between 8 and 51 percent.

Can the minister just confirm that there is that level of uncertainty — that potentially up to 50 percent of workers working in that specific trade currently are not certified?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

The range that you have seen in the business case is something that the business case estimated, because we don’t have a record of uncertified workers. But we do see that there is a high range, and we don’t expect to be on the highest end. But it is also why we’re taking the skills trade certification in two different phases.

When you’re talking about the auto service technician, they do have a higher number of uncertified workers. When we introduce the ten initial trades, we’re doing that in two phases. Phase 2 will include the three automotive trades with lower rates of certification — the automotive service technician, autobody repairer and heavy-duty-equipment mechanic.

This phased approach, in addition to providing a one-year transition period before skilled trade certification trades requirements are enforced, will enable individuals and employers to easily come into compliance with skilled trade certification trades requirements. That’s why we have a longer implementation timeline for automobile, because we’re looking out for these workers. We want them to be successful, and we don’t want to be leaving them behind.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The minister, in her earlier comments, indicated that of the first initial ten trades that are being considered for implementation, there would only be a 1 percent impact with respect to this new legislation. Yet for just one of these trades, the minister’s numbers, which the minister has shared with us — it’s actually part of the report that the government has relied upon in tabling this legislation — indicate a variation from 8 to 51 percent. Up to 50 percent of the workers in this specific field, and this is from motor vehicle body repairs, currently may not be certified.

The numbers in the minister’s own report tell a very, very different story. If I look at the other trades that are listed, I can go on. Gas fitters, the range is from 23 to 50 percent uncertified.

Now, the minister said that only 1 percent of workers will be impacted by this legislation that are currently uncertified, in her opening comments. Yet the data from which the minister is drawing their conclusions and tabling this legislation….

Again, for motor vehicle body repairs, 8 to 51 percent; automotive service technicians, truck and bus mechanics, 7 to 41 percent; electrical power line and cable workers, zero to 18 percent. These are huge variations.

I can tell you, categorically, the NOC code 7241, electricians, and it’s in brackets — except industrial and power systems. So electricians. The report indicates 58 percent of the workers in this category are apprentices, 54 to 79 percent are identified as journeyperson, and it shows that zero percent are uncertified.

[3:45 p.m.]

I know absolutely, categorically, that is false. The number of individuals working in the electrical trades field that currently are uncertified is not at zero percent across this province. So maybe I’ll back up one step, and I’ll maybe provide the minister an opportunity to share with us the raw data that was utilized to actually develop this information from which the ministry is relying on in tabling this very important piece of legislation.

Will the minister share with us the raw data that was actually provided to PricewaterhouseCoopers for their evaluation in creating and compiling this information that the ministry is actually leaning upon in order to provide guidance for the drafting of this legislation?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

The AEST LMIO model, based on the B.C. employment and highest-education background data from the 2016 census…. We have that census from StatsCan. The data and the research of the PricewaterhouseCooper report was a starting point. So we have updated some estimates of the data, and this was validated by our stakeholder advisory working group.

[3:50 p.m.]

For the electricians, and these are stats of 2016, from StatsCan, it’s approximately 13,000; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 274. For industrial electricians, it’s a little bit under 4,000, 3,800; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 12. For power line technicians, we have 1,235 — I’ll just be more exact, I guess; and for the uncertified workers, it’s 36.

For gas fitters, it was 1,040; for the uncertified workers, it’s 39. For steamfitters and pipefitters, we have 2,460; for the uncertified workers, it’s 102. For refrigeration and AC mechanics, we have 2,570; for the uncertified workers, it’s 348. For sheet metal workers, we have 2,515; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 458. For high-duty equipment mechanic, we have 5,220; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 856.

To the member’s question, for the automotive service technicians, there are 17,575 that are employed, and 4,669, approximately estimated, are uncertified. For motor vehicle body repairers, it’s 4,145; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 1,356.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the information that the minister has provided, the census data she referred to was from 2016. That’s a full six years ago, certainly not current data. The minister indicated that there has been additional, I guess, consultation, maybe with some of the stakeholder groups, to support or verify those numbers. I can assure the minister that those numbers are grossly inadequate and unrealistic, especially when it comes to the electrician trade.

From the information the minister just provided, when it comes to the automotive technicians, I believe the minister had indicated that there were 17,000 working in the field, 4,000 uncertified. Well, 4,000 on 17,000; that’s 23½ percent. So 23½ percent of the workers working in just that trade alone are currently uncertified, yet the minister is trying to make this House believe or to inform this House that only 1 percent of workers were going to be impacted by this legislation.

I’ll give the minister an opportunity to see if she’d like to maybe correct that statement, because it’s obvious and apparent, by the minister’s own information that she has relied upon, that a significantly higher number than 1 percent of workers are uncertified and are going to be impacted by this particular legislation.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for asking for clarification. I know the PwC report has said that there are no more than 700 that could potentially leave the workforce. We read the report, and we understood that. That’s why we went out to consult: to ask, to see what types of supports can be put in place to support people to completion or to retain people in the system. The work that we are doing is taking the report and using it to make sure that people who want to pursue the trades can be successful.

G. Kyllo: I think data is important. The information which the minister is relying upon is incredibly important. The words that are being shared in this House are certainly also incredibly important.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has indicated that this particular piece of legislation will likely lead to a net decrease in labour supply. The information that’s provided in this document, and that the ministry is relying upon in tabling this legislation, has indicated that 23½ percent of automotive technicians are actually uncertified. It also indicated that for motor vehicle body repairers, 8 to 51 percent are uncertified.

Now, the minister has shared with us that the proposal is for these initial ten trades to be brought in under two specific phases. The minister had also indicated that for the motor vehicle body repairers, it would be implemented over a one-year transition period.

Can the minister share with this House how many apprenticeship skills training positions are currently available in the province of B.C. for motor vehicle body repairers, and if there are sufficient seats in order to satisfy upwards of a 50 percent increase in one year alone? Where I’m getting at in this is that the implementation schedule, to me, seems incredibly rushed. What I certainly don’t want to see…. I don’t think any British Columbian, especially anybody that’s working in that particular trade….

We’ll likely hear many stories of individuals that might have been working in that field for the last 20 years. They have all the necessary skill sets to actually complete and conduct the work of that particular trade, but they have yet to go through any kind of a certification program. At a certain point in time when it becomes compulsory, that individual no longer will be able to actually earn a living for his family in this specific trade, unless that individual goes and undertakes this very important skills training work.

[4:00 p.m.]

I certainly don’t deny that there’s value in having trade certification, but it’s incredibly important to ensure that the ministry has appropriate training programs available to satisfy the entire need, or what we will likely see is individuals that might have worked in a particular trade for 20-plus years suddenly being told: “Sorry. We appreciate you have the skill set. We appreciate that you’ve been working in this field for the last 20 years. But because of this bill, you can no longer generate an income for your family.”

I have great certainty that there is a gross shortage of seats available in order to meet the pending demand that is going to be forthcoming, let alone the cost that is going to be borne by these individuals — travel, accommodation, trying to find the opportunity to actually find a seat that is available so they can actually take the necessary certification.

It’s important, as we look to this legislation, that we have some comfort from the minister and this government that they will ensure that nobody is going to lose their job and lose their ability to continue to provide for their families on account of the change in policy.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for that question. That question had a lot of really good thoughts in it, and we want to make sure that we collect all these for you.

No, the employers will have one year to support uncertified workers to come into compliance from when their trade is designated as a skilled trades certification trade. And I am very confident, as we talk to our training facilities and post-secondary institutions, that there is capacity there.

Designation will occur through regulation. If an em­ployer has too many apprentices to meet the ratio, the ITA will work with employers to find more journeypersons to help them meet the ratio requirements.

What we are doing here is helping employers and apprentices and those who want to enter trades, every step of the way, to become successful, because we’re not putting up red tape. We’re actually creating red seal, and this is what we are trying to do: to put value back. I do want to emphasize that while most employers are already meeting the proposed ratio, if some employers demonstrate that they cannot come into compliance, they will be able to apply through ITA for a temporary adjustment.

As well, I know that you also talked about capacity. Access to in-classroom trades training is a priority that won’t change with the introduction of skilled trades certification. We expect more tradesworkers to access apprentice training seats and are confident that the majority can be handled by post-secondary training institutions.

During the engagement, we have heard concerns that the skilled trades certification may create wait times for specific trades programs in some regions that already are experiencing high demand. That is why we are introducing STC trades in phases so that the system has time to respond and is ready to welcome additional trades students.

As well, we are hearing from people what they need. That is why three weeks ago we made an announcement of an additional investment of new money, $5 million over three years, to increase apprentice training supports and program seats so that apprentices can access training when and where they need it.

As well, we do know that just because workers will become uncertified doesn’t mean that they don’t have avenues to certify. Of the 4,000 workers that we know, approximately 2,200 workers in automotive service will challenge the exam. They’re already in the system. They have the hours. They have the knowledge and ability. They just need to challenge, so they don’t need be to part of the in-class or the training system.

While they are challenging the exam, they can continue to work as usual. This component will not require seats if people are challenging the exam. So there is capacity. There are supports.

The purpose of this legislation is to bring back prestige to the tradespeople and to put value back — definitely not to create any barriers — because we have heard what tradespeople need. And we are working to provide the supports and services that I previously have mentioned.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that response. I appreciate that the ministry is going to make best efforts to ensure that there are enough trades-training seats in order to satisfy the significant demand that is going to be placed upon government associated with this legislation. But what I didn’t hear was that there is going to be a guarantee.

[4:10 p.m.]

As I indicated earlier, individuals that may be already working in these specific fields that are being impacted by these ten initial certified trades are not going to be guaranteed the opportunity to have a seat in order to obtain that necessary certification. I might also add that there are significant costs that will be borne by employees when they undertake this certification.

The federal government has done a great job in recent years on making an easy transition from employment, with no waiting period to go onto EI for their skills-training time, but it only pays 55 percent of their gross wage. So right out of the gate, there is a reduction in pay.

In addition to that, if you happen to live in maybe even a remote riding like Shuswap, the trades training is not available just down the street. The individual will have to travel to an outside jurisdiction, whether it be Kelowna or Kamloops or Vancouver, in order to take that trades training — travel costs, accommodation costs. Good luck trying to find it.

A foundational skills-training program could be upwards of ten weeks. Try to find accommodation in the Lower Mainland for ten weeks when you live in a small, little community. Meanwhile, somebody is going to have to provide for your family while you’re away taking that foundational skills training. It is a significant burden.

I appreciate the object of this bill of increasing trades. But as was identified back in the 1990s and then in 2003 when the compulsory trades component was actually removed and moved to a voluntary apprenticeship program, it’s had great success — I believe, over a 350 percent increase in the number of apprentices over that time period. But this legislation will put considerable cost burden on the backs of employees, and it will also take workers out of the workforce. We have an overheated labour market currently.

As I said at the outset of my commentary when we started to debate this piece of legislation, there are worker shortages throughout British Columbia. You just have to walk down the street and see the number of help-wanted signs. I was talking to a contractor only a few weeks ago that indicated he’s turning work down because they cannot find enough certified trades. In one instance, he actually had to pull back and rescind a house contract because he did not have the available skills trades or availability of labour in general in order to satisfy that particular contract.

What will happen when all of these workers go to undertake their skills training? It’s going to take them out of the workforce. These are not my words, Minister. These are the words of the individuals who are hired to actually complete this report. They’re the ones that are setting out and identifying the significant concern on the net decrease in labour supply.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also goes on to say, a report commissioned by government…. It outlines that “without sufficient support from government and employers, members of some equity-seeking groups — including Indigenous workers, immigrants and those with disabilities — are likely to exit the trades labour force at a higher rate than workers….” So there are some significant concerns on the impact.

I have a friend who has been working in the electrical field for the last 15 years. He’s getting close to 60 years of age. When I was chatting with him about this new compulsory trades program, he said: “What? I’m going to have to go back to school?” A very talented individual, he knows the trade inside-out. He’s been working under the supervision of a journeyman red seal electrician for many, many years. He’s paid a rate that is almost commensurate with a journeyman electrician.

Because government deems that compulsory trades are the topic of the day — with a lot of pressure, I’m sure, being received by the building trades unions and other large union organizations in the province — they’ve decided that that worker now has to go to school or brush up on their math and their English in order to challenge the trades certification program in order to continue to provide for his family.

That, I think, is extremely concerning, especially with the labour shortage that we currently have at hand. Now, I know that we’re still just getting on to section 3.

I think, with that, maybe I will take my seat, and we’ll move on to some subsequent sections of the bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: When there is reference to the duties that the board could delegate, can the minister provide a bit of clarity on what specific duties could be delegated?

Hon. A. Kang: Before I answer this current question, I would like to take an opportunity to answer the previous questions which I didn’t get an opportunity to do, so I’m going to just do that right now.

I did hear that there were concerns about workers who are in the field for a long time and not having the opportunity or not having the time to go back to school, or they’re at an age where going back to school doesn’t make sense to them. That’s exactly what we’re not doing. We’re not doing that. Challenging the exam, one can continue to work.

There are also timings that…. There are five years to take the challenge as well, so there is plenty of time. For someone who is 60 and might be retiring at 65, then they don’t need to take that challenge. It’s not about going back to school and getting the basics.

As well, there were concerns about people not able to get training. In November of 2021, 80 percent of IT apprentice survey respondents agreed they were able to take technical training at a time and location that was convenient to them. The source of that is the IT annual apprentice survey, so I would advise the member to take a look at that.

As well, the question on employees and employers and their concerns. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, in 2021…. This is the largest and most broadly based business association in British Columbia, and they represent more than 120 chambers of commerce and boards of trades, and 36,000 businesses of every size and every sector and region.

[4:20 p.m.]

In 2021, the chamber released a report with recommendations to government that included: “Should discontinue modularized training and certification and…should reinstate compulsory certification, in alignment with the rest of Canada, accompanied by using a clear framework for the review of trades with an effective compliance and enforcement policy, based on evidence-based analysis and input from industry.”

That’s exactly what we have been doing. Last point is that it should include that first- and second-year apprentices should be sponsored by a company prior to registering for school.

As well, what’s the problem here that we’re trying to solve with skilled trades certification? Introducing the skilled-trades certification model in B.C. is about putting workers first to help address the needs of our changing economy, for now and the future, as we build a stronger and more inclusive economy in B.C.

In 2003, when the previous government introduced legislation that eliminated the compulsory trade require­ments, transitioning B.C. to an open labour market really hurt this industry. The current model has led to a trades workforce in which thousands of workers have no formal recognition of their skilled trades, and these workers are often paid less and have lower rates of employment, stability and mobility.

By implementing skilled-trades certification in B.C., we will make sure that workers are credentialed to the highest possible skill level to meet the future demand of a strong, inclusive and sustainable economy. We have heard that there are challenges. There are gaps. That’s why we have supportive services in place.

Now, to answer your current question right now about delegating, the board is able to delegate almost every­thing, except the bylaw-making authorities and having a review officer. So just two things that the boards cannot delegate.

G. Kyllo: I’ve got a couple of other follow-up questions. Maybe rather than asking them one at a time, I’ll ask a few questions, and if the minister would be kind enough to answer those together, that would be great.

The questions are: who may the board delegate to? Then the other portion to that question would be: why has it changed that the powers and duties of the board may exercise powers under the act? This appears to be a bit of a shift. If there’s a shift to regulation in an OIC, how would the board supervise or delegate those powers?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The board can delegate authority to the CEO, an employee of the Crown corporation. These provisions bring it into line with other, more modern Crown legislation, as we have seen updated in our province and other provinces.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated there are initially ten trades that are being contemplated being implemented as part of this legislation. Can the minister confirm with this House that the ten trades that have been identified are the only ten that are proposed to be implemented as part of this initial piece of legislation? If she can set out, specifically, which trades will be under the phase 1 implementation, which trades under the phase 2 and what those timelines are.

I think it’s really important that businesses around the province have certainty around what the expectation levels are. I’m just looking to see if the minister would be able to provide that clarity to the House.

Hon. A. Kang: We are introducing ten initial trades in two phases. The first phase is electrical and mechanical trades by 2022. Phase 2 is automotive trades by 2024.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We are contemplating that phase 1 will be those trades with the highest certification rates, so three electrical trades — construction electrician, industrial electrician, power line technician — and four mechanical trades: refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic, steamfitter, sheet metal worker, gas fitter.

Phase 2 will include three automotive trades with lower rates of certification: automotive service technician, autobody repairer and heavy-duty-equipment mechanic.

This phased approach, in addition to providing a one-year transition period before skills trade certification trade requirements are enforced, will enable the individuals and employers to easily come into compliance with skills trade certification trade requirements.

[4:30 p.m.]

Our long-term vision is to provide opportunities for industry to submit requests or recommendations to the ITA, who will present recommendations to government for approval of additional trades for skilled trades certifi­cation so that more workers and employers can realize the benefit of certification.

The Chair: Member.

G. Kyllo: Welcome back to the chair, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

So I’m clear, the minister had indicated phase 1 implementation in 2022 and for phase 2, 2023. Sorry, the minister was just signalling to me. If the minister could just provide a bit more clarity. Like, is that at any time during the year? When would be the deadline, the date, by which an employee will have to have either challenged the certification requirement or, at the very minimum, actually achieved their first year of apprenticeship in order to continue to work in all of those respective trades? I’m just looking for a bit more clarity as far as timeline, both for phase 1 and phase 2.

Then if the minister could also clarify and actually just provide some clarity to this House: will it be only these initial ten trades under this timeline, or is government giving themselves the ability to make adjustments and changes both to timelines and to the number of trades through an order-in-council? Do we have the minister at her word that what is presented here today is with certainty what is being anticipated for implementation?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you for asking for clarification.

Phase 1 will be June 2022, so these trades will have one year to comply or to register as an apprentice or to challenge the exam. Phase 2 will be 2024, June, and they will also have one year.

To confirm, yes, only these ten trades in this particular timeline.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister. That is very helpful and, I think, comforting, that there will be no surprises, so thank you for that.

In one of the minister’s previous answers, the minister referred to ratios. I’d made a note, so I’m coming back to that now. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit more clarity. When she referenced ratios, what was she was referring to? If she just could provide a bit more clarity on those ratios. I’m assuming that’s likely the ratio of journeyperson or red seal–certified journeyperson to apprentices, but I just want to have a bit more clarity with respect to what that reference was to.

Hon. A. Kang: The journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio prescribes the maximum number of apprentices that can be supervised per one journeyperson. We are considering a ratio based on input and recommendations from industry consultations, as well as other provinces’ ratios, but no decision has been made yet.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide some clarity to this House on when they anticipate establishing those ratios and how those will be communicated out to the various industry groups?

[4:35 p.m.]

I guess as a further part of that question…. If we look to electrical trades, for example, the ratio for an industrial electrician working on a large highrise construction site or maybe in a power substation versus, maybe, an electrician that might be working in a manufacturer — a manufacturer of modular homes, as an example. Very different environments.

Is it being contemplated that those ratios will be adjusted based on the, I guess, complexity of the work that’s being undertaken by those specific trades?

Hon. A. Kang: We do expect that June 2022 is when we will be having more clarity on the ratios, and it will be enforced in 2023. The ITA will be communicating this. Maybe some clarity, just on the question on the adjustments that you were asking.

Then, just lastly, I wanted to let the member know that section 32 is the section that is talking about ratios, so perhaps we could talk about this at a later section as well.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

G. Kyllo: Yeah, just briefly on this particular section, if I could just catch up here. With respect to the bylaws, I’m just trying to ascertain: if the board happens to disagree with the direction of the minister, who has the ultimate say?

This, I think, just comes back to a bit more of a discussion around who, ultimately, is in control of the organization. The concern, quite often, especially with a separate Crown corporation, is the potential for minister overreach. I’m wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit more clarity with respect to this particular section and how, if there is a disagreement between the board and the minister, that is reconciled. Or does the minister ultimately have the ultimate say on directing the Crown corporation?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The government has oversight over their Crown corporation, so the minister can ask for a bylaw to be amended from time to time, but ultimately, we will be working together to get the best advice and to get the best bylaw. Ultimately, it will be the government that would have the power to amend a board bylaw.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that last response. Under section 11 — this is financial administration, strategic plans and reports — I’m just wondering: are there any user fees that industry will be required to pay? Under this particular section, are there any user fees that industry will be required to pay?

Hon. A. Kang: There will be no impact on the industry. This is solely for the operation of the Crown corporation. This is for the Crown corporation to have a financial fiduciary duty to report to government, and that they are doing this in a sound, responsible way. This also mirrors other Crown corporations and their management — nothing to do with industry.

[4:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much for that clarification.

There’s reference to the SkilledTradesBC to produce an annual report after the end of each fiscal. I wonder if the minister could just clarify when those reports are anticipated to be actually tabled. As well, just wondering if the minister sees any potential barriers preventing SkilledTradesBC from producing the strategic plan before April 1, 2023, which is the current deadline that’s kind of established. So just a bit of clarity on those two items.

Hon. A. Kang: The end of the fiscal year is March 31. The annual report would be ready within two months, so approximately the end of May. As well, there are no problems or any barriers for our strategic plan to be tabled on April 1, 2023.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

On clause 13.

G. Kyllo: Section 13. Will this section give powers to create new programs at different institutions? If so, has the minister considered expanding training seats or maybe the ability of providing training through alternative means to increase the gross number of seats that are available annually in the province?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: This is a carryover from the old act to the new act, so this section provides powers to the corporation for the designation of apprenticeship programs and approval of industry training programs under the act, and for the development and oversight of these programs.

I just want to, once again, really emphasize that we do have the capacity right now to provide programming for the first ten STC trades, and we expect to be able to meet this demand. But also, we will be putting these STC trades into two different phases so that we are able to meet the capacity. In addition to that, we are investing another $5 million, as I have said before, to create more seats and to create more support.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for reminding me of that. The $5 million over three years is, really, a bit of a pittance, when you have a look at the implication and the significant number of increased training requirements in the province. It sounds like a big number, but $5 million over three years is a very small amount of money, when I have a look at the significant additional burden that’s going to be placing on these accreditation institutions.

With respect to this particular section of the bill, it’s been pretty apparent from this government that it has a propensity for supporting building trades unions and discriminating against progressive unions like Canada West or the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

Can the minister share with this House: will equal opportunity be provided for additional trades-training opportunities for progressive unions, or will they continue to show discrimination and only want to support trades-training opportunities with the larger, better known building trade unions?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Just to clarify that. The $5 million that I was referring to is new money that we’ve most recently invested. It’s not the only money that we will invest for the next three years, but it’s an additional investment beyond the $21 million to support skilled-trades certification.

As well, we also know capital infrastructures are very important. So, most recently, we made another announcement to BCIT trades complex with $136.6 million in that investment, and there will be more to come as well.

Your question on equal trade opportunities…. Yes, there will be equal opportunities for ITA-designated training opportunities. So they have to be ITA-designated.

G. Kyllo: I recently had a conversation with a First Nation that had significant interest in pursuing trades-training opportunities for their members. I’m just wondering what the application process would be if there was a First Nation that chose to want to undertake to provide training within their traditional territory to reduce the burden of travel and accommodation. There’s also, quite often, many concerns with First Nations sending their youth, maybe, off to the big city for a ten-week period to get trades training, and they would like to have that opportunity of providing trades training closer to home.

This, I guess, is a bit of a more specific question. But are there opportunities provided, or is there the ability under the Crown corporation to provide, those opportunities for on-site trades training in First Nations communities? And would that have to be potentially done in partnership, maybe, with a traditional college or an existing trades-training facility? Or would they have the ability of actually…? As long as they had the certified trainers, could they actually undertake to become certified and provide that training directly — of themselves?

[5:00 p.m.]

I was going to maybe add to the minister that just a yes or possibly…. I don’t necessarily need all of the details. Thank you very much.

Hon. A. Kang: We wanted to provide as many details as we can to you, so we were looking for that. So I guess that a simple…. Yes, we do offer Indigenous-based training programs where trades training is provided in the community in partnership with a local PSI. So that would be possible. They could also apply to be an Indigenous trades trainer or provider as well.

As well, we have new object of corporation or new object under subsection 3(e): “to promote participation of Indigenous people in the industry training and apprenticeship system, including by encouraging Indigenous people to register in and complete industry training programs and apprenticeship programs.” We do want to make sure that everyone has fair participation.

In a new definition that we’ve added to training provider, and in the training provider subsection (c): “A person or entity designated as a training provider by the corporation under section 18 (a)” — this is an expanded definition to include the possibilities of Indigenous trades trainers.

I know you were interested also in the application process. That’s with ITA. I will be very happy to provide you a written form so that you can provide that to the people that you’re talking to.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Yes, I think that it is incredible important, especially for rural and remote areas and especially for underserved populations like First Nations communities and others. The significant barrier to participating in many of these apprenticeship trade training opportunities because they’re largely only available in larger centres.

As said earlier in our discussion, significant challenges with transportation, trying to find adequate accommodation, meal costs, all of those sorts of things. Of course, while you’re away, although you may be eligible for EI benefits, that’s a significant reduction. So there’s a significant cost being borne by apprentices. The more work that can be done to provide more mobility to provide that opportunity for trades training outside of our major centres is certainly something that is incredibly important.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

G. Kyllo: If the minister might be able to just provide an idea of what the timelines for the application process are? Are those finite? What would be the realm of reasonableness with respect to that application process as established under section 14?

Hon. A. Kang: We don’t have that information right here, but we’ll be happy to provide that information as soon as we have it from ITA.

[5:05 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much.

One other question is: what are the eligibility requirements to register under the apprenticeship program? As an example, is there a requirement for individuals to have grade 12 or to have passed a grade 12 math or English equivalency? What are the potential barriers for somebody to actually be able to make an application, to register and actually start to undertake the trades training?

Hon. A. Kang: So this particular section is also another carryover from the previous act. There are no differences in the eligibility. Different eligibility varies from different trades. But we have support services in place to make sure that everyone is successful in getting through their apprenticeship and being a journeyperson or a red seal.

Some of the examples of the supportive services that we have in place are the 25 apprenticeship advisors who offer direct support to apprentices, employees and communities in all of the regions, including Indigenous communities and rural communities. As well, Indigenous community-based training programs to make sure Indigenous learners can receive training close to home, access mentors and not have to worry about transportation. As well, a dedicated completions team, because we do know that some tradespeople often enter the trades but some or many don’t complete, and we want to make sure they complete their training.

There’s one-on-one support with apprentices who may need additional support to complete the necessary requirements. This may include refresher training, any tutoring that is required or additional learning and exam preparation. So when you ask about the barriers or challenges, we’re trying to reduce that by providing as much support as we can for people to be successful.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that there are lots of supports. I think it’s my understanding that there are no entrance exams. But as an example, if there’s an individual that maybe only completed grade 10 — post-secondary — would they be able to register for apprenticeship trades training in all of these ten trades that are identified? Or will there be a requirement for those individuals to satisfy some form of an educational requirement? And I believe that I have heard that for some trades, there’s a requirement for grade 12 level English and also math competencies that have to be achieved prior to being eligible to even register as an apprentice.

[5:10 p.m.]

It’s certainly not a trick question. I just want to have some certainty. Again, if we look back to my friend, a 58-year-old individual, who may be looking to either challenge the exam…. That, I can see as being one case.

For an individual that may have not graduated grade 12 or grade 12 equivalency with the Dogwood, are there any barriers for that individual to actually register for an apprenticeship program, or are there requirements that they have to satisfy before they’d be eligible to actually make an application and register and continue working in the field?

Hon. A. Kang: Anyone can register to be an apprentice. There are no prerequisites, but ITA may recommend that they take a certain level of English or math so that they can be more successful in their entire journey.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

G. Kyllo: Just quickly, can the minister provide some clarity? What is the difference between an apprentice and a trainee? I guess part of that clarity would be: has the ministry contemplated labourers doing base-level work within different industry qualifications, like electrical, for example — potentially drilling holes in studs for the running of wires or nailing an electrical box to a stud?

Is that work only anticipated to be able to be undertaken by either an apprentice or a journeyman tradesperson? Or is there the opportunity for a labourer or a trainee to undertake some of those more menial tasks that have very low risk within the different industry sectors?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: An apprentice is a person who’s registered in B.C. in an apprenticeship program for a trade. And then a trainee refers to a person registered in an industry training program — for example, a foundation program or a youth in trades program, like those in high school. Under the former act, this term referred to persons in any type of trades-training program, including apprentices. But in this program, there’s a difference.

You did ask about single-skilled work. This particular piece will be defined in the…. The scope of trade will be defined in the regulations, so that will be to come after the act.

G. Kyllo: Yes, thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.

I guess the area of concern has to do with what work labourers will be able to actually undertake, and you’ve indicated that that will be determined through regulation. I certainly know, in both working in trades as well as having lots of conversations with large contractors, some of the challenges that exist whereby we see these silos being created where only certain industries or a certain, specific journeyperson can actually work and achieve certain functions — on a construction site, as an example.

When the minister mentions or indicates that this clarity will be provided through regulation, can the minister just provide a bit more clarity on what work will be undertaken to try and determine…? I guess, what levels of work can be undertaken by labourers? And then, also, if there is a concern….

I’ve heard stories where a welder, for example, was unable to actually move 2-by-4s on a construction site in order to get access to the area that he needed to work on, because he’s not deemed to be a carpenter and was not able to even move a load of lumber out of the way so he could actually do welding work.

That is a significant challenge. I’m just wondering what level of, I guess, consultation is going to be undertaken with industry to have a look at the affordability piece and just the logistics of actually managing a large construction site.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for sharing these stories and then these circumstances.

Through our engagement, we heard from industry that the “scope of trade” definition should be based on Red Seal Occupational Standards, so the RSOS, which applies across Canada. Defining scope of trade ensures that industry and workers understand who and how the requirements apply, based on the work being performed. The scope of trade will be defined through upcoming regulation and will be informed by our ongoing engagement and consultation.

To answer the member’s question, our intent here is to ensure that people who are practising very limited scope of skilled trade certification will be able to continue to provide, perhaps, home repair services or other jobs, such as installing light fixtures, but the scope of practice will be addressed through the scope of trade regulation.

Clauses 15 and 16 approved.

On clause 17.

G. Kyllo: Just quickly on section 17, this section is actually incredibly important. The reports identified that there are many barriers in writing tests using technology. It’s really important that we give consideration to some of those entrance barriers, so I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a bit more clarity.

Just how will the corporation work to mitigate the risks that have been identified in the report to provide reasonable trade qualifications? This largely has to do with our First Nations populations, immigrants, those that otherwise may not have the most convenient access to trades training in the province.

The minister indicated earlier on that there was about a $5 million funding lift over the next three years. I’m just wondering: are there any dollars that are specifically targeted to members from rural and remote communities and providing that additional assistance in helping them attain certification?

Hon. A. Kang: The purpose of this section provides powers to the corporation, respecting trade qualifiers which are necessary to enable the establishment of the trade qualifier pathway to an industry training credential.

This section is also carried over from the previous act. This is an important pathway for persons seeking to obtain an industry training credential outside of other established pathways.

[5:25 p.m.]

I know that your question was about the supports available for those in the rural and remote communities. I’ve talked a lot about the supports, but I would like to highlight a few that would pertain to rural and remote communities.

The 25 apprenticeship advisers are across all of British Columbia, and we made sure that when these apprenticeship advisers were hired, they were across various regions and focused on, you know, Indigenous supports but also supports for other members of the trades. These would be in every community and every region of the province, so maybe that’s part of the answer that you’re looking for.

As well, there are Indigenous-based training programs, and this is to support Indigenous learners to receive training close to home and with the support perhaps through elder support as well.

Also, virtual tools to support apprentices with low essential skills or learning disabilities to be more successful in technical writing. As well, distance and flexible learning options for technical training. There are a lot of supports around, and we will be working with ITA to reach out to those who need them. Through our apprenticeship advisers, we will know where they are and identify them.

There are opportunities to be working one-on-one with apprenticeship advisers as well.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

On clause 19.

G. Kyllo: On section 19, can the minister confirm if there’s anticipation of additional fees for examinations outside of tuition, or will the tuition always include any examination fees?

Hon. A. Kang: This section is a continuation of the act.

There is no fee for registering as an apprentice with ITA. There is a $120 fee for applying to write the challenge exam for the first two attempts. This amount is fully tax deductible, and this fee drops to $100 for your third and subsequent attempts.

Fees for writing a challenge exam are standard in other jurisdictions.

Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

G. Kyllo: I’m getting excited towards getting to the end of the day here.

On section 22, can the minister confirm, is there reciprocity with other provinces with respect to the acceptance of other red seal training programs, specifically these ten trades that are contemplated as part of this bill?

Then the other question that I had, which relates to that, would be: is there reciprocity with other countries? For example, a certified journeyman electrician from the United States or maybe the U.K., is there reciprocity there? Or is there a requirement for the exams to be challenged in order to be able to actually work under that deemed trade?

Then the final part of that question will be: or somebody maybe coming from another country, are examinations available in other languages?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. A. Kang: All ten STCs have lever mobility across Canada, so B.C. and Alberta and other provinces. It’s transferrable. Workers who have obtained certification from outside of Canada would be required to take an ITA challenge exam to receive a B.C. certification qualification, or choose to register as an apprentice. If they don’t speak English, the exam will be given in English, but they can bring an interpreter, or ITA will provide them with an interpreter or a translation.

This also goes the same with temporary foreign workers and employers who hire them. They will need to meet all skilled trades certification requirements, including the requirement to be registered or certified. They will also have the same supports provided by ITA to prepare and manage taking certification programs — translation, basic services, child care and travels.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We’re just going to go and take a short recess, as you’ve all been working very hard and might have other things you might need to do. We’ll take a five-minute recess. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 5:33 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re here on Bill 4, and we were last discussing clause 22, I believe.

Clauses 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On clause 25.

G. Kyllo: If the minister could just provide some clarity. So if a worker was to choose to retire from a specific trade for a number of years and then choose to come back a number of years later, what would be the re-registration requirement? Would there be any additional training required for that journeyman electrician, as an example, to come back to the trade after having retired for three or four or five years?

Hon. A. Kang: So twofold. If they are a red seal, then they continue to be a red seal for life. So they could retire, and they could come back. If they’re not, they’ll be reassessed, or they’ll be assessed. They could either register again as an apprentice, or they can take challenge exams.

Clauses 25 and 26 approved.

On clause 27.

G. Kyllo: Section 27 contemplates regulation, and I’m just wondering if the minister can confirm. Are there any regulations that are currently being drafted, and if so, would the minister be able to release those regulations?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The ITA has made recommendations to the ministry, and it’s public, on their website, so you could check it out there. Regulations are expected to be brought forward by order-in-council or to the minister in phases.

The first phase of regulation is in development right now and expected to be complete in the summer of 2022. They’re intended to focus on designating the first seven skilled trades certification trades, defining their scope, establishing temporary authorizations and exemptions as well as ratios.

The second phase of regulations is expected to relate primarily to compliance and enforcement, and these regulations are expected to be complete in the fall of 2022.

The third phase is expected to be complete in the summer of 2024 and is expected to focus mostly on the designation of automotive trades and their scope of trade.

G. Kyllo: The minister, in her response, referenced temporary authorizations. Can the minister just provide a bit more clarity on where and under what circumstances a temporary authorization would actually be issued?

Hon. A. Kang: Temporary authorization is section 31, but I’m happy to answer that right now. No final decisions have been made, as we are still consulting on regulations. We are considering two temporary authorizations for workers. One is a trade qualifier, and the other one is a one-time, five-year temporary authorization for older workers.

In terms of trade qualifiers or challengers, accessing the existing challenge pathway would have two years from time of application to pass the exam and achieve certification. We believe that two years would give uncertified workers ample time to prepare to write the exam, access exam-writing supports and accommodations, and allow for multiple exam attempts without disruption of work.

The second one is for a five-year temporary authorization for older, experienced but uncertified workers to continue working without applying to challenge — and the final exam.

Clauses 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the previous answer with respect to the temporary authorizations. The temporary authorizations are an extremely important part of this legislation. There are certainly concerns, I think, as has been identified, and then the minister’s response indicated for maybe a bit of the elderly workers that may be looking for that five-year authorization to get them through to retirement….

I had a couple of other questions or inquiries with respect to this particular section on the temporary authorizations. I’m going to quote from page 5 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on compulsory trades, where it indicates:

[5:50 p.m.]

“…it is expected that without sufficient programs in place to address barriers, some workers will be disproportionately negatively affected by mandatory certification — namely, those that currently face the greatest barriers to certification and have a high current share of workers without certification.”

Highlighting:

“This includes Indigenous workers, recent immigrants, people with disabilities and people with lower levels of education and English language proficiency. Without sufficient support, it is likely that these workers would be more likely to leave the trades, if they are currently uncertified, and less likely to enter the trades in the future.”

The minister has provided a bit of clarity on how the temporary authorizations may work.

As a bit of clarity, if an individual has been working in trades for ten or 15 years and they want to challenge the exam, can they continue working in that field for that two-year period while they’re actually challenging the exam, or is there just a two-year period by which they can challenge it, but they still can’t work in the trade until they pass the certification? If the minister could just provide some clarity around that piece for me.

Hon. A. Kang: This is a very good question. So yes, PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified that without sufficient support, people may choose to leave. That’s why we are providing lots and lots of support. We do believe that the support is there for people to be successful.

To your question about challenging the exam, as individuals are challenging the exam, they are able to continue their work.

G. Kyllo: Fantastic.

So just a bit of a follow-up to that. An individual that may be working or has identified as working in a specific trade — what information would they have to provide to the training authority in order to satisfy any requirements to allow them to challenge the exam? I’m assuming that anybody can’t just sign up and say, “I’m going to challenge that exam,” and that there is going to be a requirement for a certain amount of information or employment history with a set employer.

Just wondering if the minister could provide a bit more clarity on what information will be required to be provided by a worker in order to challenge the exam and to also, then, receive the temporary authorization.

Hon. A. Kang: To apply for a temporary authorization, it’s a combination of hours and of competency in the trades — for example, getting the hours from their previous employers. The process of getting a TA is to apply through the ITA. The process is still being designed right now.

[5:55 p.m.]

Regulations under this section will be developed upon this act receiving royal assent, and they will be developed in close consultation with the corporation and various stakeholders and representatives of Indigenous peoples.

G. Kyllo: So the requirements have yet to be determined? If the minister could just clarify.

If an individual has worked in a trade for a number of years — the number of years of service, the number of hours — has that yet to be determined? I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a bit more clarity around how many hours an individual would have to work.

Is that just simply a letter from a previous employer? What additional information might be required in order to be submitted for the registration?

Hon. A. Kang: I just want to clarify my answers previously. When we talk about challenging an exam, it is a combination of hours and competency. So you would challenge whatever your competency is. It will be measured during the exam. These are following existing policies and process.

When we’re talking about temporary authorization, that is a different story. Sorry for mixing that up. That process is currently being designed, but we are thinking about 36,000 hours of practice or work hours.

For this particular one, there is a one-time, five-year temporary authorization — so one-time, temporary authorization — for older, experienced, uncertified workers to continue working without applying to challenge the final exam. The five-year temporary authorization would allow workers who may be close to retirement or have 36,000 hours or a lot more to complete their career on the tools without having to write an exam. They can still work throughout the five years.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that answer. So 36,000 hours. Assuming 50 weeks of work a year at 40 hours, that’s 2,000 hours. That’s the equivalent of 18 years of employment in a specific field before there would be consideration of a temporary authorization.

Can the minister just provide some clarity for me? I’m just having a hard time understanding this. If an individual has been working, say, alongside a journeyman carpenter for five years — hammer and nails, doing foundations, building homes around the province…. If they’ve had five years of experience, the temporary authorization is not eligible for them? Their only opportunity to continue working in the field would be to actually register as an apprentice and then potentially even give consideration to challenging the exam.

This is very important, because I just hope that the minister can provide a bit more clarity. It could be my misunderstanding, but the reference to 36,000 hours…. That’s over 18 years of employment.

[6:00 p.m.]

I would certainly hope that it wouldn’t require 18 years of work in a given field before government would even give consideration to accepting or acknowledging the skill set that an individual might have undertaken over even a five-year period. Just looking for some clarity.

Hon. A. Kang: I’ll try to be more clear in my answers. I think we may just have kind of slipped through a little bit. I’m going to try this again.

There are two types of temporary authorization. The first one is a trade qualifier. These are people who would like to challenge, because they have the skills already, but they don’t have the certification. Trade qualifiers would be accessing the existing challenge pathway, and they would have two years. So they don’t need to apply as apprentices, because they’re going to be challenging the exam.

From the time of application to pass the exam, they have two years to achieve certification. The reason why we thought of two years is that we believe that two years would give uncertified workers ample time to prepare for an exam, write an exam, access exam-writing supports and accommodations, and allow for multiple exam attempts without disruption of work. So they can still work as well.

Then the next clarification is the one-time five-year temporary authorization for older experienced uncertified workers. The story, the narrative that you have talked about today is: would older workers have to go back? It doesn’t make sense for those closer to retirement.

This one-time, five-year temporary authorization for 36,000 hours or more is really for this category. They can continue to work without applying for a challenge exam within the five years, but if they would like to work six years, then they will have to write a challenge exam. So the five-year temporary authorization will allow workers who may be close to retirement to complete a career on the tools without having to write an exam.

I hope I was a little bit more clear.

G. Kyllo: Now, the reference to the 18,000 hours — I’m assuming that that then only applies to the five-year temporary authorization for older workers. So if that is the case, I’m hoping the minister can just clarify that.

I can think of a situation. Ted’s worked in the construction field for the last six or eight years. He’s 61 years old. He doesn’t want to go and challenge the exam, but he wants to continue working for the next four years. Would that individual not be eligible to apply for the five-year temporary authorization, with five or six years of experience? The minister did reference this 36,000 hours, which is the equivalent of 18 years.

I’m hoping for older workers that may have tran­sitioned…. Maybe somebody got laid off from a sawmill and decided to take up construction in their mid-50s. They’re now 60 years old. They’ve got five more years till retirement. Is that individual eligible to apply for this five-year temporary authorization, or are they going to be forced to actually undertake the registration and the apprenticeship program in order to continue to work their final five years of employment through to retirement?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We’re still developing the regulations, and these are the options that we are currently considering. We will be hearing from many people as we continue to develop these regulations.

I have confidence that anyone who has been working in the field for 36,000 hours or 18 years on the job…. I have confidence in the supports that we have — that there won’t be challenges for anyone to not pass a challenge exam. We’re going to make sure that all supports are there to support anyone who wants to be certified to become certified.

G. Kyllo: So I’m clear, this reference to the 18 years of employment or 36,000 hours…. I appreciate that that number maybe has not been fully determined, but the minister had shared that number with this House, so I’m assuming there has been some consultation or discussions around that number of years of employment.

I think the example that I shared of an older worker, somebody that maybe only achieved grade 9 or 10 education…. Originally he’s worked, maybe, in a pulp mill or worked in a plywood plant for their entire life and because of downturn in the industry sector, for varying reasons, maybe lost their employment and was forced to try and find alternative means of providing food on the table for his family at the age of 55. They’re now 60 years old. They’ve worked five years, say, whether it’s in construction or electrical or a number of different trades — auto body, as an example.

I think it’s really important that for Bob, who is now 60 years old and has five more years of work before he gets to the age of retirement…. Is it the intention of this government and this minister to require Bob to either challenge an exam or enter an apprenticeship training program in order to continue to work in that given field? Bob has been working for five years as a carpenter. He’s working alongside a journeyman. He knows his trade. He knows what he can do.

Are there going to be allowances through these temporary authorizations to allow that individual to continue to provide food on the table for his family, or will Bob be forced to actually go back to school or enter an apprenticeship training program or be forced to challenge an exam because Bob — five years employment — only maybe has 10,000 hours?

The minister is referencing 36,000 hours. I wonder if the minister can provide a bit more clarity on that specific piece.

Hon. A. Kang: These regulations are still being developed, and these recommendations are provided by the ITA. It’s on their website.

[6:10 p.m.]

We are still in consultations on the regulations, so we would love to hear from people like Bob, who is working in carpentry. I also would like to point out that carpentry is not part of the ten STCs that we’re putting forward.

But people like Bob who are in the ten STCs, if they passed the five years and have the 36,000 hours and still would not want to take a challenge exam…. I can’t imagine why Bob would not pass the exams, because of his qualifications of so many years on the job, but he could also register as an apprentice and continue to keep working that way.

Clause 31 approved.

On clause 32.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that previous clarification, as challenging, I think, as that may be for older workers in the province.

Ratios. We did have some conversation earlier on in this debate on ratios. I appreciate that the minister has indicated that those have yet to be determined. However, I think it’s very important to note that the ratios are incredibly important.

We have spoken about the skills training gap that I certainly believe exists. The minister may differ with me there about the available training seats for these ten trades and the amount of training seats that are available to provide the necessary apprenticeship training for a significant number of workers that are currently uncertified in the province. That challenge is further exacerbated with respect to the ratios.

We can appreciate that it may take eight or ten weeks of skills training for a foundational skills training course for an individual to do the registration and maybe satisfy the first initial requirement for apprenticeship training. But for a journeyman, I think that fast-tracking it…. The fastest it can be is probably around the four- to five-year mark. But we are certainly hearing, and I believe it’s even referenced in this Ernst and Young report, that for many trades, it’s upwards of ten years.

I think it’s important to highlight the implications of these apprenticeship-to-journeymen ratios as part of this discussion, because if the ratio is set too low, requiring a higher number of journeymen to apprentices, we could have a significant challenge, where you would see employers having to actually lay off or terminate apprentices because they cannot find enough journeymen in this province in order to satisfy the ratios that may be set by this minister. It’s less of a question and more of a very significant concern.

I’m sure the minister would be equally as concerned to see businesses or industry having to lay off workers because they’re unable to find the necessary number of journeymen electricians or journeymen autobody repair technicians in order to meet the ratios that are going to be established. Can the minister provide a bit of clarity on not just what the ultimate decision will be but the transparency and the data that the minister will be relying upon to make that decision?

[6:15 p.m.]

Will the minister confirm to this House today that the information that she will rely upon in establishing those apprenticeship-to-journeymen ratios will be shared so that British Columbians can have confidence that the ratios established by this government and by this minister are achievable — and sharing that raw data so that we have that open, transparent ability to just have the confidence that the ratios that are going to be established will not negatively impact the employability of workers in this province or the ability of employers to continue to grow and expand and provide those very necessary family-supporting jobs?

Hon. A. Kang: We are considering a ratio based on input and recommendations from the industry consultations as well as from other provinces’ ratios. We heard broad support for a 2-to-1 ratio. A skilled trades certification ratio will be finalized through upcoming regulations.

We do recognize the need for a flexible process for employers to be considered for a temporary adjustment through the ITA, based on need, while still adhering to a minimum standard of apprentice supervision. In the next section, section 33, it provides authority to the corporation to grant an employer an adjustment to a supervision ratio.

For example, there may be circumstances when employers will need to request an adjustment when completing key infrastructure projects or in rural or remote locations or if the businesses in some communities have limited access to certified journeypersons. The criteria for granting an adjustment to the journeyperson-to-apprenticeship ratio will be laid out in the upcoming regulations, and all adjustments will be temporary.

We are going to be working with the industry to make sure that everyone is successful in every way.

G. Kyllo: Mr. Chair, I almost fell off my chair. Two to one? The minister indicated they’re giving consideration to a 2-to-1 ratio. For every journeyman, there could only be two apprentices? I’m not sure where that number has come up, and I certainly hope that that is not a number that the minister is seriously considering.

We spoke earlier in this debate about some of the complexities and the different challenges with different work situations — electricians, for example, if you’re working on a substation, if you’re working on a highrise building, if you’re wiring 600-volt panels versus just doing residential work.

We also spoke a bit, and I shared the differences between different industry sectors. Modular home construction — Britco, ATCO, large industrial manufacturers — have to compete with jurisdictions from other provinces around Canada and other jurisdictions south of the border, many of which do not have any form of compulsory trade or apprenticeship ratio.

If it is the intent or the consideration of this minister and this government that they would establish…. It’s shocking enough that they’re moving back to this compulsory trades program and moving away from the voluntary basis. But if it is the desire of this government to further handcuff and reduce the competitiveness of businesses here in B.C., especially the manufacturing sector, by having ratios as outlandish as 2 to 1…. Many construction sites quite often will see ratios of 7 or 8 to 1. It really depends on the type of work that’s being undertaken. It’s very dependent on the type of facility.

The minister has indicated that they’re giving consideration to additional alternatives to this apparent 2-to-1 ratio that the minister just mentioned. Is the minister giving consideration to different ratios depending on the type of work being undertaken and the type of environment that is being undertaken?

If it indeed is the intent or the desire for a 2-to-1 ratio, I can tell you right now that just about every manufacturing sector, modular home or otherwise, will see this as yet another negative impact to competitiveness with other jurisdictions.

[6:20 p.m.]

We are already one of the highest cost jurisdictions in North America to manufacturing, everything from a corporate tax rate that is now 50 percent higher than Alberta…. In Alberta it’s 8 percent. In B.C. it’s 12 percent.

The Minister of Labour just recently put in new paid sick leave requirements. That’s, in this fiscal, going to be between 2 percent and 4 percent additional cost for businesses operating here in B.C.

The minimum-wage rate in B.C. is 34 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta and even higher than neighbouring jurisdictions south of the border.

I appreciate that there are desires of this government, and it is fully within your mandate to move that forward, but I truly hope that this government will give serious consideration to the ratios so that they don’t further handcuff and negatively impact and further erode the competitiveness of great businesses here in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Kang: So 8 to 1 is not supportive of good training. When I think about my work as a teacher, just like a student-teacher ratio…. We have ratios in place because we want our students, our apprentices, to have the best training possible. So B.C. is actually the outlier. All provinces and B.C. have compulsory trades, and similarly, all jurisdictions except B.C. have prescribed journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios for each skilled-trades certification trade, which ranges from 1 to 1 or 2 to 1.

What we are doing is we are bringing B.C. back into line with other provinces and keeping our competitiveness here in British Columbia. Although we recognize that comprehensive provincial and interprovincial research was conducted in the development of this legislation, while there is no one model that fits exactly with B.C.’s context, other provincial examples have been used to inform our approach.

Everything we are doing is still under consideration, and we will be continuing to consult. We just want to make sure that our apprentices are under the best training possible, because they’re helping us to build B.C. back better.

Clauses 32 to 76 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I’d like to thank the member for their questions.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — SKILLED TRADES BC ACT

Bill 4, Skilled Trades BC Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. A. Kang moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.