1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7805 ]

CONTENTS

Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading — 7805

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Segarty)

On vote 54: minister's office — 7805

Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of the

House to welcome, not to this chamber but to this world, the eleventh

grandchild of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), born this

day.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, today, April 17, is the first

anniversary of the proclamation of

section 15 of the Charter — the

equality charter — the one which was going to guarantee equality for

women, the disabled, minority groups and other groups in our society.

I'd like the House to join me in recognizing this very special day.

Introduction of Bills

INSURANCE FOR CROPS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in moving first reading I

would just advise the House that this is a simple one-section bill,

which has the effect of increasing the amount that can be drawn from

general consolidated revenue for the crop insurance stabilization

account from $10 million to $20 million. This money is, of course,

repaid through crop insurance premiums in subsequent years.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd just like to spend a few minutes again

going over some of the things we talked about yesterday in my opening

remarks in the absence of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann),

the critic in areas of labour relations. For the member's information,

we talked a great deal about the industrial relations climate in

British Columbia, and about the Workers' Compensation Board and what

we've accomplished over the course of the past year in terms of the

administration. I'm sure the members had a chance to look at those

areas in the Blues. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made a

little fun of my Irish accent yesterday in debate, on how I pronounce

New Westminster — is that how you say it? — and the member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) also had a little fun with me in talking

about the past and opportunities for the future.

We talked about his $80,000 research grant, and I noticed a new

election pamphlet that was put out by the Leader of the Opposition, the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and the first and second members for

Victoria (Messrs. Hanson and Blencoe). It's a very colourful, nice

pamphlet indeed, but I can't take credit for the way that the language

is written. They talk about time for a new "beginning":

b-e-g-i-n-i-n-g. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition and

both members for Victoria apply to the Excellence in Education fund to

If they get approval, I may make application myself.

Sometimes you file things that you quote from, Mr. Speaker, so I'll file this with the assembly later on.

On a more serious note, it is nice to see the member for North

Island, and I'll look forward to his participation in the debate, and

his discussion and suggestions for improving the industrial relations

climate, occupational health and safety and other areas of jurisdiction

under the legislation and operations of the Ministry of Labour.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this

opportunity to compliment the Minister of Labour. I think the lost time

in the last calendar year, 1985, as a result of industrial conflicts —

whether strikes or lockouts — is certainly one of the best records that

I can ever recollect having seen in the province of British Columbia.

It was a dramatic decrease from former years, and it's great to see

this type of cooperative spirit prevailing throughout the length and

breadth of British Columbia: the cooperative spirit by management and

labour and the cooperation and assistance of the Minister of Labour and

the provincial government in having these parties work in a cooperative

manner to reduce lost time among the workers and the corporate entities

in the province of British Columbia.

It looks as if 1986 is going to be another successful year. There

seems to be an air of cooperation throughout British Columbia and a

feeling of optimism and confidence among the private sector, and I

believe the signal that we had in the settling of the transit dispute

is a clear indicator of the kind of settlements that we will be

unveiling in the province of British Columbia during 1986.

[10:15]

It is also encouraging to see a settlement in the pulp industry

three months before the expiration of the contract. Having been

involved in the field of industrial relations for the best part of my

life, I cannot ever recollect a settlement being made by a major pulp

union — a major forest products union — that early in the collective

bargaining process. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the other major

forest products unions will use that settlement as a pattern, and I am

convinced that that pattern will be adopted by many other trade unions

throughout British Columbia, and we can indeed look forward to another

successful year in the field of management-labour relations in the

province of British Columbia. It is good to see that feeling of

cooperation and that spirit of enterprise being transmitted not only in

government, but to the private sector and the trade unions throughout

British Columbia.

[ Page 7806 ]

Also, I would like to make a few comments about the job creation

happenings in the province of British Columbia. During these last few

months, and indeed the last year or year and a half, there are

certainly some positive indicators, a clear indication that the

policies of the provincial government are working. They are being

transmitted into action, despite the fact that the province is

undergoing one of the most dramatic economic international downturns

and recessions in its history, other than in the thirties. It would

appear that the decisions made by this government in the years 1982,

1983 and 1984 are paying off in handsome dividends at this point. It's

interesting, Mr. Chairman, in looking at statistical data, that in the

province of British Columbia there were 23,000 additional people

working in the month of March as compared with the month of February

1986; one of the most dramatic growth months we've ever witnessed. Even

though the province of Ontario is three times the size of B.C., the

province of Quebec over twice the size, we in British Columbia created

more jobs in the month of March than any other province in the Dominion

of Canada: 23,000 more people working.

Also, Mr. Chairman, if you want to go back to the month of January

1985, comparing it with March 1986, just 14 months later.… We in

British Columbia have to our credit 89,000 more people working in that

14-month period than we had in January 1985. I think this is a result

of the framework, the foundation, the air of confidence that this

provincial government has transmitted to the private sector and labour.

I think if we can continue with this cooperative attitude, this feeling

of confidence, we can continue to see job growth throughout the length

and breadth of British Columbia.

I've heard it said from the other side, Mr. Chairman, that all this

growth is taking place just in the mainland. Statistics will show that

this is just not true. In the month of March 1986 as compared with

March 1985, there were 11,000 more people working on Vancouver Island.

Other examples are there for all to see, as provided by Statistics

Canada. Okanagan-Boundary, February to February over the last year,

4,000 more people working. Throughout all regions we are seeing things

happening in British Columbia.

I would appeal to the minister to please continue with the type of

programs that you're developing. I think you are on the right track. I

think we have to continue to appeal to the federal government to get on

a similar track to what we're on in British Columbia. They're coming.

They're not coming as fast or moving as fast as we did in B.C., but we

have to continue to appeal to the federal government to work more

closely with the provincial government in the area of job creation.

I, for one British Columbian, am not entirely happy with the breaks

that we are getting in B.C. with the equalization payments with Ottawa.

But that's another story, and perhaps there's more to be told on that

another day. But when I look back at the contributions by province in

the year 1985-86 toward the federal equalization payments, it's quite

sad indeed to look at the statistics and see that we in British

Columbia were a net contributor to the balance of payments to the tune

of $607.8 million. That to me deserves attention by the federal MPs for

the province. It's very interesting to go to the Hansard

in Ottawa and read through the questions asked by federal MPs for the

province of B.C. and see how much concern is being expressed on our

behalf — the people they represent — the kind of questions that are

being asked to put this message across to Ottawa that we want a better

deal on equalization payments in B.C.

To the minister, I think that he has a job to do in Ottawa when he's

meeting with his federal counterparts to fight and press for even a

better deal than what B.C.'s getting today, because that is one of the

things that's holding us back. There are too many dollars from B.C.

going to Ottawa and not enough dollars coming back. It's as plain and

simple as that. British Columbia represents 11 percent of the

population of Canada. If you look at the amount of money that we pour

into Ottawa and conversely look at the amount of money that they return

to B.C. either through payments or through distribution of income....

Or if you want to look at the purchasing side, Ottawa only purchases

about 4 percent of their supplies and goods and services through their

purchasing commission. There's about 4 percent spent in the province of

B.C., compared to the fact that we represent 11 percent of the

population and contribute in excess of that percentage-wise to the

Ottawa coffers.

So I will close now, but I do want to congratulate the minister. I

think that B.C. Is clearly on the road to recovery. I even notice, in

looking at the economic analysis put out by the B.C. Central Credit

Union.... They talked about B.C. employment in the month of February

1986 compared to February 1985. They indicate dramatic growth in jobs,

50,000 jobs in that 12-month period, so there's another indication. And

there are many others. The way the report reads, it's very encouraging

and very hopeful.

One of the things to back up what I've said just a few minutes ago

that's pointed out in the credit union bulletin on page 4 of the March

edition, is that they talk about federal expenditures. If you want to

talk about who is doing a job and who isn't doing a job, it's good to

read this kind of stuff. We think we've got a debt problem in British

Columbia; well, let me tell you, when you look at the federal

government, we don't know what debt's all about. Do you realize that in

the last fiscal year the federal government had to borrow $30 billion,

and that, on a total budget of $116.7 billion, $25.6 billion is going

toward interest? Do you realize what that means? That means that there

is only about 55 cents of every dollar the federal government spends

that they're collecting in current taxes, because the rest is borrowed

money and interest. God help us if we ever get to that position in

British Columbia, and thank God that we have a Premier and a government

that is determined to bring the cost of government under control and,

indeed, has given clear indication that those costs are under control.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to comment on one point, before I

begin, made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I don't think any of

us are very happy with the level of debt in Ottawa and the costs to all

of us that that implies. But you know, we're not very much different in

British Columbia. We've got $18 billion worth of debt here; we're

spending close to $2 billion a year on interest alone. That's in the

range of 20 percent or more of our provincial budget too. So if the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke wants to criticize the economics in

Ottawa, he might look a little closer to home and see that we're not

very much different here either, in respect of the massive debt that's

been built up in British Columbia in the last ten years.

British Columbia must be the only parliamentary democracy in Canada

where the government has so little respect for the traditions of

parliament that they would begin estimates

[ Page 7807 ]

on a particular ministry on a day when they knew

the spokesperson for the opposition was not able to be present. I'm not

going to complain about that kind of stuff, but I just find it a good

illustration of the respect that the government has for the institution

of parliament. Estimates debates are an important element of what goes

on in parliamentary life, and if the government has so little respect

for the system that it's prepared to bring forward estimates at a time

when the main spokesperson for the opposition is unable to be present,

then I think, without saying any more words about it, it says more than

I think we need to know about the government's respect for this system.

Frankly, it's a waste of time, because what happens is that people

begin to put the transmission in neutral. I can't quite mix this

metaphor properly, but they put the transmission in neutral and have

the wheels spinning. I'm not quite sure how that works, but that is

what happens in terms of the Legislature. We tend to waste time. So I

wish the government would recognize that this place could operate with

a bit more dispatch if there was a bit more respect.

Because I was away, l looked at the Blues of the minister's

introductory speech yesterday, and I must say that if that is a

summary

of the minister's activities and ministry operations for the past year,

and if that's a demonstration of what is going to be happening in the

next year, then not very much has happened or is going to happen. I

suspect the minister too must have been caught by surprise with these

estimates coming up at the last minute as they did, because the speech

sure didn't seem to have much preparation behind it. That's

unfortunate, and that may not be a criticism of the minister; it may be

a criticism of the House Leader.

Nowhere in the comments made by the minister is there any reference

to jobs or to job strategies here in this province. The minister may

say: "Well, that's not my responsibility." But clearly the one ministry

in this province that has a responsibility to take a lead in developing

strategies for job creation is the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of

Labour should be an advocate for those who labour or who would like to

labour in this province. Clearly, judging from the minister's

activities, his speeches, and his decision about what to print glossy

brochures about, he neither recognizes nor accepts that he has the

major responsibility in this province for devising a job strategy.

There is no job strategy in British Columbia, despite all the

television commercials, all the speeches, and all the efforts to talk

about partnership — and not practise it. If there were a job strategy,

there would be a recognition that there are certain elements in our

society and certain geographic regions in this province that have

particular problems requiring particular solutions. Yet none of that

seems to be happening. There seems to be no recognition whatsoever that

the Kootenay region, the Prince George region, the Okanagan region, the

Island region in particular and the North in general have entirely

different economies, one from the other, and that a megaproject-based

economic strategy in which the megaproject money eats all the available

resources in terms of capital for job creation, if applied to

particular and geographically small sections of British Columbia,

clearly cannot deal with regional unemployment and the regional

inequities that exist.

[10:30]

Those of us on Vancouver Island have waited for some years now to

see what the government's strategy would be for Vancouver Island. Mr.

Chairman, there is no strategy that I can discern. Duke Point got off

the ground. But what is being done to ensure that that continues and

expands?

The central issue on Vancouver Island in terms of developing a

strong economy and providing jobs is the construction of a highway from

one end of the Island to the other. We don't have one now. We have a

street system between Parksville and Campbell River, a highway north of

Campbell River and a partial highway south of Nanaimo. But for the rest

of the Island we have a street system. You can't have an economic

strategy for a region when you don't have an essential element in any

economic strategy — a transportation system. There has been no strategy

whatsoever for determining what the Island can do best and putting in

the infrastructure. The Ministry of Labour does not seem to understand

that it has a key role in this kind of economic decision-making.

It's true that the same kinds of things go on in other regions of

the province. We have unemployment rates.... The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) can talk about how many more people

are working this month over last month, or this year over last year;

but there are still over 50,000 fewer people working today than there

were five years ago, in rough terms. In any event, the unemployment

rates rival those of the Maritimes, and historically British Columbia's

rates have never rivaled those of Atlantic Canada. But they do now, and

on Vancouver Island we have the second worst unemployment in the

country. In the West Kootenays we have 21 percent unemployment as of

March 1986. That doesn't even begin to count the real toll, because the

way Stats Canada does its calculating, it does not include all kinds of

people. It doesn't include discouraged workers who've stopped looking

for work because of their age, health or lack of skills, or because

they live in an area of high unemployment. StatsCan in these numbers

does not include people who would like to work but do not even try

because they think they have no chance of finding a job. The StatsCan

numbers do not include native Indians, who are a major element of

unemployment in this province, and importantly, the figures do not

include the part-time worker who would like full-time employment. So in

a region like the west Kootenay where we have officially 21 percent

unemployment — one in five people — we no doubt have at least 50

percent more than that when you count all of these categories that are

not counted. When you look at that, you're looking at perhaps three in

ten, perhaps one in three people not working at the level that they

would like to be working at.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

And where's the strategy? There isn't one. You know, Mr. Chairman,

in this province we don't even have a strategy for planning ahead in

highway construction. A major source of employment for continuing

employment in British Columbia is the fact that we have a massive

highways budget, both for maintenance and for new construction and for

reconstruction. Yet contractors can't plan one year to the next. They

don't know how much machinery to invest in. They don't know what

equipment to keep. They don't know how many miles — if they're a paving

contractor — are going to be paved next year. There's no plan. There's

no attempt on the part of the government to say: okay, when the private

sector investments are up and the economy is doing better as a result

of that, we'll pull back a little bit in public expenditure in areas

like highway construction; and we will plan these

[ Page 7808 ]

things out so that there is an equilibrium in the

economy, rather than the massive ups and downs right now that we have

which lead to situations where construction workers might have a couple

of years of full work and then two or three years of no work —

contractors going out of business, because they can't afford to keep

the equipment sitting idle year after year. No plan. There's $1 billion

a year worth of job investment potential in the Highways budget in the

last two years and this year, yet there is no plan on the part of the

government, no plan developed by the Ministry of Labour, to coordinate

that expenditure, so that construction workers can work an even amount

of time, so that contractors know how much equipment to keep on hand.

There's not even a thought, Mr. Chairman, that the government should

play a role in attempting to even out the economic ups and downs that

this province is so subject to. What happens instead is that the

government contributes to the ups and downs by its megaproject strategy

and by its refusal to put its investment in places that are important

and at times that are important. Rather we get investment for political

purposes. We get investment in northeast coal, because the member for

that area wanted to develop it, not because it was the right thing to

do at that time. We get investments in other endeavours particularly

relating to highways connected to election schedules, not connected to

the economics of the people who do the work in the industry — both the

contractors and the workers.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't believe me, Mr. Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Waterland). Talk to the contractors. You wouldn't believe the

workers and you won't believe me. Talk to your friends who are the

contractors, because they're the people who are telling us these things

today.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with developing plans, you have to have

labour market forecasting. I don't see that that is being done

particularly well in British Columbia now. It doesn't strike me that we

have a good handle on knowing what kinds of jobs are going to be needed

down the road and how many people should be trained in those particular

areas. We have a rather hit-and-miss system that leads us to having

unemployment rates of 90 percent in the labourers' union, coming up to

90 percent in most regions in the carpenters' union; unemployment rates

across the trades of much more than 50 percent. And why? Partly because

there's no planning, partly because there's no government involvement

in the whole question, but also partly because there's no proper

forecasting of needs, and as a result people go into trades or into

skills not knowing whether there's going to be a job coming out of it.

That's true right across the board. At the moment we have a surplus of

teachers, so people think they shouldn't go into teaching. Has the

ministry done a study on how many teachers are going to be needed in

1992, for example, and how many we potentially will have, so that we

don't get into a situation where we're going to have to start importing

teachers as we have in the past — or nurses or any other group or trade

or skill?

I've talked very quickly about some of the regional unemployment

problems. But you know, there are other kinds of problems too. I guess

there are two elements of our economy now that, in terms of employment,

bother me more than anything else. One is the increasing number of 45-

to 55-year old men, mostly, who have been laid off, who have no other

skill, whose particular skill is in surplus, and who will never work

again. They're 50, 55; their pensions are not at a level that they

anticipated they would be. They're at home. They don't know how to cope

with that situation. They get in the way at home. Domestic problems

more often than not occur as a result of that. Lives are wasted. When I

knock on doors. as I do occasionally between elections, and more

intensively then, in the middle of the day, I find guys who are in

their fifties who have lost their jobs. Their pension levels are

inadequate. They're not going to be reaching old-age pension levels for

another ten years. Their wives are trying to find part-time jobs

working in a dress shop at minimum wage, eking out an existence.

But you know, it's not the financial side of it that's so killing;

it's the fact that they think they're not worth anything any more. They

feel like that old piece of equipment or machinery that's been cast on

the junk heap. That's how they feel. It may not be practical to have

programs to retrain people of that age. But, my God, there must be some

attention put into developing some programs to find out how we can deal

with that hidden social problem that exists out there in increasing

numbers.

The other area of our economy that chokes me up a bit, quite

frankly, is youth unemployment. I don't know that we really know how

many young people in British Columbia are not working, and at the same

time are not engaged in full-time education. The numbers tell us it's in

the range, over the last few years, of the low 20s — 21.6 percent in

March 1986. My suspicion is that you could double those numbers and

still not count all the young people who would like to be working and

who are not working.

This is a problem of monumental proportion. It's a problem not just

today in terms of what the impact is on young people, but it's a

problem for the future of this province and of this country. It's a

problem because we're going to have tens of thousands of people

reaching their late twenties and early thirties never having held a

full-time job; never having learned some basic things, like getting up

at 6:30 in the morning and going to work; never having learned the

skills that you learn in those early days in those early jobs; not

having any experience, reaching into their thirties burned out

emotionally, I think that 10, 15 and 20 years from now that this

particular situation is going to lead to social problems the likes of

which we've never thought of before in this country.

I intend to talk more about that, but I must say at this point that

the Minister of Labour, who has the responsibility for youth in this

province — which presumably means the most important thing, next to

education, for youth, which is employment — produces a newsletter. It's

in Social Credit colours, like everything else is in this province.

It's the one with the massive picture of the Minister of Labour on the

cover: "Spring 1986." It's a newsletter of the B.C. Youth Advisory

Council, so you might anticipate that the chairperson of the Youth

Advisory Council might get his or her picture on the cover; but no,

they get the Minister of Labour's picture on the cover. Clearly, that's

because he's in trouble in Kootenay, and he wants to make sure this

gets into every household in Kootenay.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I got a dozen in the mail. They're of no use to me.

[ Page 7809 ]

Mr. Chairman, we have in this province, officially, one in five

young people unemployed — no doubt unofficially closer to two out of

five young people unemployed — and what do we get from the Minister of

Labour, through the youth program? What's the major thing inside this

leaflet? A logo design: "A Message from the B.C. Youth Advisory

Council." The British Columbia Youth Advisory Council invites

submissions from young people and the general public for a youth logo,

etc. What do they win'? They win a three-day trip to Expo. Is that the

most important thing that's required for youth in British Columbia

today, or in fact is it the most important thing that's required for

the re-election of the member for Kootenay? Isn't that what this thing

is all about'?

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman, in making these comments I cast no reflection or no

aspersion against the people involved in the ministry at the public

service level who are involved in fulfilling these programs. The

responsibility for the decision about what is important in youth

programs is the responsibility of the minister.

We've had a youth council for some time. Most of us on this side of

the House don't know a single one of those youth council members. My

suspicion is that every one of them with maybe one or two exceptions; I

don't know — come out of the ranks of Young Socreds or have parents who

are active in the Social Credit Party. That's not a council that

reflects the young people in my constituency, nor it is a council that

reflects the sons and daughters of the people in the trade union

movement in this province, whom I work with on a fairly close basis.

That council does not reflect them. That council has not, to my

knowledge, gone out and talked to young people in Campbell River who

are not working. They haven't done it in Campbell River; I doubt that

they've done it in Powell River; I doubt that they've done it in

Alberni. What we've got is a glossy PR effort to try — thank God it's

going to be unsuccessful — to re-elect the government, rather than to

deal with the crisis that exists among our young people in British

Columbia today. I can't believe it. The major element inside this

newsletter is a logo design. No doubt, if you don't ensure that the

logo can incorporate red, white and blue, you won't win.

Mr. Chairman, in passing and we're going to get back to this in more

detail later on we've got some more red, white and blue for women's

programs. Is this a coincidence that the colours that the ministry uses

happen to be Social Credit Party colours?

I must say, to be fair....

MR. MOWAT: You just gave the committee on youth a bad name without even knowing it.

MR. GABELMANN: If the committee on youth in this province —

to the member for Little Mountain — were serious about their job, they

would have long before now had a meeting with the opposition members

who are involved in youth responsibility. We have not, to my knowledge,

on this side of the House ever had a request from the minister, the

ministry, the youth council or anyone connected with them seeking our

views as to what programs should be developed for youth here in British

Columbia. So when we know that they don't even take that basic step to

meet the elected representatives of this province, then I know what

else they're up to too, which is nothing.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the fact that the government has appointed a

senior person to be charge of women and women's programs in British

Columbia I applaud that. And l applaud the fact that there is a genuine

and serious effort to try to make women's programs an integral and an

important element in the Ministry of Labour; I want to make that clear.

I applaud that, because it has not always been the case in British

Columbia, and if certain other members of the government caucus had

their way it wouldn't be the case now. I want to make that clear. But

when the problem in British Columbia for women is jobs, what do we get?

"A Plan for Progress." What's in it? All kinds of nice photographs of

the minister again. A message from the Premier. It takes two pages to

say it's a plan for progress. The table of contents takes two pages.

The message from the Premier takes another two pages. A message from

the minister takes another page. Finally, there's a decent page: a

message from the deputy minister responsible for the women's programs

and youth services; on about the seventh page there's something

worthwhile. What's in it? All kinds of nice buzzwords. What's coming?

Programs, conferences. No recognition that what's required, more than

anything else in this province, to assist women is full employment —

that's the key — and employment at rates of pay that are equal to the

rates of pay that men get, so that we no longer have the situation

where women are getting 60 percent of what men get, in terms of wages.

That should be the focus. It's hard economic stuff that needs to be

dealt with, not this glossy PR stuff that's designed to re-elect the

minister. It won't work, I might tell you that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll get you this time, Terry.

Now we're going to do some more later on in these estimates on the

question of women. I just wanted to include' that at this point because

I find the emphasis on gloss and glitz and PR and Socred colours in all

of this stuff just a little bit too much to take when there is a crisis

out there in terms of what's happening to women, what's happening to

youth, and what's happening to men and women all over this province in

terms of their lives. What do we get? We get millions upon millions of

dollars spent in advertising.

Now I want to deal with the question of these estimates. I've been

trying to figure out what the money is going to be used for that's

being allocated. As I see it, just looking at it in rough terms, it

looks to me that there's a $19 million amount available for grants —

roughly, just short of $19 million — under the labour market programs.

There appears to be another $10 million for grants and contributions

for the assisted job access programs, whatever that is. There appears

later on in the estimates under vote 79 another $15 million.

What's going on with this $44 million? What are the programs? What

is the state of the negotiations with the federal government on the

Canada jobs program, CJS — the Canadian Job Strategy, to give it its

proper name? Why is it that British Columbia, unlike Ontario, seems

unable to negotiate an agreement? How much money is actually going into

specific programs designed to deal with the regional problems, the

youth problems, the retraining problems? The year is over in 2 1/2

weeks. The money is supposed to be spent in this fiscal year. How much

of it has been spent? How much of it is committed? Where is it

committed? What's it for? Why are we apparently spending only $10

million on...

[ Page 7810 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Only?

MR. GABELMANN: …a summer student employment program? Yes, only.

Now I hope the minister will tell me I'm wrong. But I want to remind

the minister that in 1974, with half the unemployment rate among young

people, the government spent $25 million on summer employment programs.

In today's terms, that's $50 million worth of expenditure, dealing with

inflation. With half the problem, we spent the equivalent of $50

million a decade ago and the government, with twice the problem, should

be spending $100 million to equal that level of support. What are they

spending? My sense of it is that it's about $10 million.

It's really very difficult for those of us on this side of the House

who want to comment on specific programs, the direction of the programs

and how the money is going to be directed, when we get in the estimates

these nefarious and vague kinds of statements that grants out of one

program seem to be $19 million available, that there's another $10

million even for job access — presumably that's money that's going with

the federal government — and there's another $15 million outside the

estimates later in the book. It just doesn't make any sense, and I

would like the minister, since my time is over, to tell me about that

and to talk about some of the other questions that I raised in this

initial opening presentation.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

thank the member too for his participation in the debate so far. First

I'd like to talk about the British Columbia Youth Advisory Council and

take this opportunity to welcome all of those young people who are in

the gallery this morning watching the proceedings from no doubt other

areas of British Columbia.

Let me say at the outset that the booklet the member talks about was

not produced by the Ministry of Labour, but is a product of the Youth

Advisory Council. That's exactly what the council is, hon. member: it's

a youth advisory council. And, quite frankly, I take exception about

the comments that you made in your opening speech, when I would have

thought you would have been there presenting some opportunity for ideas

for the Youth Advisory Council to develop programs and ideas. The

member pleaded ignorance somewhat in saying that he hasn't had a

request from the Youth Advisory Council to go before the opposition and

talk to the opposition about programs that they might want to develop

for young British Columbians.

Well, let me say that all of us are in this chamber as members of

the Legislature because we are supposed to have been providing

leadership in our community, because we're not shy about going and

asking people for certain things, including their votes. So why would

he want the Youth Advisory Council to go knocking on his door asking

for advice? Why would he not have taken the initiative to go and talk

to that group of young people who come from all regions of British

Columbia?

I know not their politics, but they come from all regions of British

Columbia, represent all young people across the province as far as

possible — the regions, the geographic locations of the provinces, the

cultural and ethnic mix of our province — and do a good job for a

variety of young British Columbians. Yes, they have gone out and they

have met with a variety of young people across British Columbia, and

yes, they have come back with some good ideas on what the government of

British Columbia can do to help them help themselves.

Quite frankly, they're getting tired of the opposition calling them

the lost generation and the useless group of young people in British

Columbia. As I go around the province, I see a great many very

enthusiastic and energetic young people who don't want government to do

everything for them, who would be pleased to be able to go out and just

get a helping hand from their friends, neighbours, community and

parents to help them land their first job. That is the responsibility

of government.

I'm pleased to say that the government has recognized some of those

areas, where they've given us advice, some of them mentioned in the

throne speech, some of them in programs currently being developed by

the Ministry of Labour, and some of them currently being negotiated

the member talked about.

I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition

members to make themselves available to the Youth Advisory Council, not

to wait for them to come and ask them to participate in a political

debate. Go and seek an appointment with them and talk to them about

what they can do to help young British Columbians help themselves. They

will find this government receptive to any ideas that they put forward

on ways that will provide them better opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, the Youth Advisory Council is made up of a good group

of hard-working British Columbians. They're not all university

graduates. Some of them are single parents. Some of them are out of

work. Some of them cover the far reaches of British Columbia and the

regions. You can be proud of the Youth Advisory Council, and I know

that young British Columbians can be proud of them and will continue to

be proud of them as time goes on.

I did make a commitment to the student council of British Columbia

that we would accept their nominee, selected from an election at the

student council level, to have a member participate on the Youth

Advisory Council. They have forwarded to me the name of a

representative that they would like to place on the council, and I'll

be pleased to make that appointment in the course of the next week or

so.

[11:00]

The member for North Island talked about employment opportunities in

British Columbia. We discussed that somewhat yesterday. the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talked about that this morning as

well. Yes, there are too many people out of work in our province and in

our country. We all recognize that. But what we're going to do about it

— there's some difference in philosophy, obviously, between us and the

party across the floor.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When the government of British Columbia and our Premier recognized

the difficult times that our economy was in in 1983 and was

forward-looking and looked at the world recession and the economy that

lay ahead, and the opportunity for British Columbia companies and their

employees to go out and sell their products in the world market, it was

quickly recognized that the cost of government was an impediment to any

industry in British Columbia doing business in the international

marketplace. So the government came in with a plan and a strategy to

reduce the size and the cost of

[ Page 7811 ]

government. When the government brought in that

program of cost-reduction, the opposition mounted a campaign with

Operation Solidarity and marched across British Columbia and objected

to every measure that the government brought in to reduce taxes in a

variety of industries.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance brought in his

budget, the only government in our country that brought in a

billion-dollar tax reduction over a three-year period, this opposition

got up and became a me-too opposition and supported every action that

the government brought in to reduce taxes. Do they know not full well

that all of the tax measures that were brought in last year were

designed to create employment opportunities for our people, to put our

companies and our employees in a more competitive position in world

markets, thus providing employment opportunities for our people?

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, this government of British Columbia

takes a coordinated approach to the development of employment

opportunities for our people. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, in

cooperation with municipalities across the province, has developed a

partnership program, because it's not just up to the provincial

government to provide these opportunities. We're all partners in the

system — unions, non-unions, corporations, municipalities. It's not

good enough for the government of British Columbia to bring in tax

reduction measures by the Minister of Finance: again, a three-year tax

reduction program — $1 billion over three years. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs set out on another course to provide opportunity for

municipalities to put companies working within their municipalities in

a position to be able to be more competitive in terms of the

international marketplace, and to put them in a position, too, where

they could attract industry to their community that would be able to

pay less taxes and enter into agreements that would put companies going

into those municipalities in a competitive position.

Likewise, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced a variety of programs to assist

industry and business across British Columbia to be more competitive in

terms of the international marketplace.

The Minister of Finance followed through again on a very unique

program that was criticized by the opposition and laughed at in a

variety of circles across the country and British Columbia. But yet

it's been one of the most successful programs of any place in our

country. The government of B.C. appointed a critical industries

commissioner by the name of Art Phillips, who entered into a

partnership program with industry, unions, municipal governments and

the B.C. government and its Crown corporations, pointing out the need

for all of us to come together in a great partnership and cooperation

to assist all of our industries and all of our commerce to go out and

provide employment opportunities for our people and expand their share

in the world markets.

Those programs are working. They've worked in Granisle and in

Peachland. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the United

Steelworkers of America for their cooperation in working with the

critical industries commissioner at Valemount and at Peachland in an

effort to put their members back to work. It was unique and provided a

unique opportunity in a volunteer way for the community to come

together, recognizing that all of them are in partnership with each

other, that it's not just the government's responsibility; that they,

too, have a responsibility to their membership, their community and to

the company that they work for. They recognized that opportunity. They

took advantage of a program that was put in place, a unique program

that was provided leadership by this government and the Minister of

Finance to put their people back to work.

That is the type of approach that we must encourage not just in B.C.

but across our country today if we are to be competitive in the

international marketplace.

MR. WILLIAMS: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: And there's that "blah, blah, blah," $80,000 researcher, ten-pack....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! All members will come to order: the second member for Vancouver East and the minister. To the estimates, please.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, again recognizing that

training is a very important part of creating employment opportunities

for people, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education has developed an

Excellence in Education program: again, a partnership approach and a

full coordinated approach on the part of our government in developing

economic development strategies and employment opportunities for our

people.

Expo 86 will bring thousands of people to British Columbia in the

area of tourism, which will provide employment opportunities for our

people. But the benefits to B.C. are those that lie beyond Expo,

because we've taken advantage of Expo to invite the decision-makers

from around the world to B.C. Those decision-makers will be here in

B.C., will be able to look at the programs that this government has put

in place in cooperation with municipalities, unions, industry and

business across our province and Canada. We will be able to take those

decision-makers into the regions of B.C. to look at the opportunities

that are there. We'll be able to show them that we can deliver our

product, that they can rely on us in terms of price, reliability,

supply and service, and that they know they will be able to get their

product to world market, again showing that B.C. Is a safe and secure

place to do business, to invest their money and to buy the products and

services of the people of B.C.

Tied into that, mentioned in the budget debate, is the development

of a preventive mediation program. Again, that's a volunteer program

that is designed to assist the parties of interest in working out

resolutions to their particular areas of difficulty. We will provide

the tools and the personnel, but in the final analysis it's up to the

trade union and the employer community in B.C. as to how they want to

use those tools.

The member talked about the employment strategy program and what we

are doing in terms of negotiating a renewed program with the government

of Canada. It is true that the Ontario government has signed an

Ontario, Mr. Chairman. It puts them at the mercy of the government of

Canada and doesn't provide any long-term funding for employment

training and strategies. We are currently negotiating that program with

the federal government in cooperation with other provincial

governments. We will hang on for the best deal we can make that will

satisfy our future demands and requirements and get the best deal we

can for the province and the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 7812 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I don't really know where to start. There is

so much.... I won't refer to where the bafflegab comes from, but it is

so much bafflegab.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read first of all something written by the Ministry of Labour.

"A single mother with little education and few skills has

little economic incentive to get to work. For example, a minimum wage earner

($3.65 per hour) working full-time for a full year with two weeks' holiday pay

could earn $6,650 annually,

whereas a single mother with one child would receive

a maximum of $7,680 direct payments on income assistance. When child care costs

are taken into account, it may not be practical to have the unskilled single

mother join the labour force, particularly if the job requirements have adverse

impact on the dependent children. But if her educational qualifications could

be upgraded so that she could earn enough to pull her family out of poverty,

it may be advisable for society to invest in the training of the single mother."

That is a direct quote from a paper produced by the B.C. women's

programs entitled "Single Parent Families in British Columbia: Focus on

Women," page 11.

It may be advisable for society to invest in the training of a

single mother. Name one program where that is happening. What are you

doing? Mr. Chairman, it is clear that when we talk about women in our

society, we are talking about poor people, and we're talking about

people for whom there is no incentive to go to work when you have a

minimum wage at $3.65 an hour, maximum annually of $6,500. Not only no

incentive to go to work, but no programs for training so that perhaps a

job at a higher level than $3.65 might be attainable.

Mr. Chairman, the programs of this government, on one hand in having

the lowest minimum wage in this country, the lowest of any

jurisdiction, and on the other hand having effectively the lowest

welfare rates, means that the government is sentencing people to a

lifetime of poverty. There is no opportunity to get off that treadmill,

and we will have the kind of thing that has happened for generations in

parts of eastern Canada where generation after generation remains

poverty-stricken. We already have that in British Columbia in too many

of our native Indian communities. We are now having this in other parts

of this province, and not just in poor parts of Vancouver or the lower

mainland, but in almost every community. You can find pockets of

poverty, and it is becoming generational. The malnutrition that occurs

among children has a direct impact not only on their health but on

their ability to get an education and their ability to train for a job,

much less to get and to hold a job. The statistics are out there and

they're clear.

[11:15]

Why are we seeing generational poverty in this province? Because the

government has legislated programs to ensure that people stay poor and

remain forever in poverty and that their children will be destined to a

life of poverty. Why? Because the economic programs of the government

through this ministry in terms of minimum wage and through the Ministry

of Human Resources in terms of the poverty level and the — to put it

mildly — less than adequate welfare rates, mean that these high-minded

ideals described by the ministry women's program will never be

achieved. What possibility, what incentive is there for people to get

off that treadmill?

Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister criticized me and has criticized

other members of the opposition for characterizing young people as "the

lost generation." Mr. Chairman, those are not the words of the members

of the opposition; those are the words of the Senate Committee on

Youth, as described in the Report of the Special Senate Committee On

Youth produced in February of this year. It is those conservative,

older — for the most part — representatives of our political system who

describe young people in Canada as the lost generation. And if young

Canadians are the lost generation, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the

appellation is for young British Columbians, who have the problem in

this province in far greater measure than anywhere else in this country.

There are any number of things that you can pick out of the Senate

report and other reports that have been produced on youth, but I want

to cite one particular set of tables out of this report. In 1961, as

compared to 1981, in this country people between 15 and 19.... The

suicide rate among these teenagers in 1961 was 2.3 per 100,000. In 1981

it was 12.7, an increase of almost six times. The suicide rate among

20- to 24-year-olds was 5.7 per 100,000 in 1961, 19.6 in 1981. Young

men between the age of 20 and 24 inclusive in 1981: 33.2 suicides per

100,000.

Now those numbers come from a time before the second great

depression. The numbers are worse now than they were then. If nothing

else alerts people to the fact that there is a problem in our

society.... And it's not all to be blamed on Social Credit — only about

70 percent of it in this province. I'm being facetious. Obviously it's

not all to be blamed on one government, but society has a problem when

that number of young people are committing suicide. When we have

increases of three, four, five and six times as many suicides among

young people in a 20-year period, that tells us we have a problem.

That, together with all of the dislocation and the poverty and the

despair and the unemployment and the lack of skills of this generation

that we're now seeing going into their twenties, should tell us that we

have a massive problem which is going to take a little bit more than a

youth council and a glossy presentation and a logo. It's going to take

a little bit more than that, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just back up again. In talking about youth programs, we still

don't know how much of that $44 million that I was identifying out of

the estimates is going to be spent where. We didn't get any answer at

all from the minister in that respect. But when I talked about the $25

million that was spent in 1974 and the amount that needs to be spent

today, which equals $100 million to buy the same value in terms of the

problem, let's look at what has happened in the last couple of years.

In the last fiscal year — the one ending two and a half weeks ago — the

government underspent its summer student and youth employment program

by approximately $1 million — underspent at a time when officially one

out of five young people are unemployed. The year before, the 1984-85

fiscal year, when similar numbers existed, the ministry underspent by

$1.1 million its budget on student and youth employment programs.

That's 10 percent of the amount provided. I want to ask the minister

why it is possible that back in I think February he was able to go and

have a press conference with the MP for Nanaimo to announce a student

summer employment program — the federal part. There was no mention of

the provincial part. Unless I've missed it, I don't think the minister

has yet announced the provincial contribution to that summer employment

program, nor how it's going to be designed. Even if he does announce

it, I don't have any confidence that he'll spend it. He hasn't spent it

for the last two years. Yet we have poverty like we've never had

[ Page 7813 ]

before among young people. We have unemployment

like we've never had before among young people. We have a lack of

trained, skilled, educated people in this province like we've never had

before. We have the lowest participation rate in post-secondary

education in the country here in this province. And what are the

programs? Zilch. Let me apologize. You do have programs: you have a

program to design a logo. It's not good enough.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that a million Canadian women will have

lost their jobs in this country by 1990 as a result of tech change.

Their jobs will have disappeared as a result of tech change. I don't

know what the provincial figure is, but let's assume it's 10 percent —

given that we have 11 percent of the population or so, but we have less

of a manufacturing structure here in this province, and presumably that

might lower the number. We're in the ball park of 100,000 British

Columbia women losing their jobs as a result of technological change.

Would the minister tell me what the programs are to deal with that

crisis in employment here in British Columbia? Is there a program? Has

he thought about it? I don't think so. There's nothing there.

It's a travesty that what we've had for at least the last two years

in this province is a government committed to nothing else than

attempting to ensure its own re-election. There is no looking at

long-term needs. There's no looking at developing plans for all these

groups I've identified — no effort in looking at regional needs; no

plan whatsoever for any problem area in our society. The only problem

they're dealing with is the problem of their popularity; and that's the

one problem they can't solve. You don't even try to solve the others.

You try to solve that one, and you can't even solve that.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about all the things he does. What

did he do to try to save those B.C. Tel jobs in Cranbrook? What did the

minister do to try to persuade B.C. Telephone Co. not to effect that

particular transfer in his own riding in Kootenay, which has among the

highest unemployment in this province? What did he do when the same

kinds of moves were being made in other communities around this

province by that particular company? I'm not opposed to progress; I'm

not opposed to modernization; I'm not a Luddite. But you've got to have

programs in place to look after people who are affected by tech change,

by dislocation, by closures. What have you got? Nothing. The minister

says — and the CRTC denies it — that he sent them a letter or a

telegram, saying: "What can you do?" Maybe he did send the letter;

maybe the CRTC lost it. What has he done? What are the programs?

Cranbrook telephone workers symbolize the problem. They have a problem

for themselves, but they symbolize a problem that is massive in this

province.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island

talked about a variety of things in his comments. He talked about the

suicide rate among young people; he talked about poverty among young

people, and so on and so forth. Without question, there are some

difficult areas in our country, and throughout the world, with respect

to young people, brought on by the breakdown of the traditional family

unit, by drug and alcohol abuse, and by a variety of circumstances and

changing times. For some of those people, yes, these are difficult

times. I'm sad that you had to say that 90 percent of it was the fault

of the Social Credit government. If he did stats in Manitoba, he might

find that they're as high there; if he did stats in Ontario, he might

find they're as high there; if he did stats in France, he might find

they're as high there. There are counselling and other programs

available in a variety of ministries and educational institutes across

our province to assist in helping those young people overcome their

difficulties.

AN HON. MEMBER: They need jobs.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Jobs may be one part of it, but it doesn't

solve drug and alcohol abuse, neither does dipping their head in the

toilet, hon. member. It doesn't solve their problem. It's a very

difficult and complex area, and I know it was the subject of a lot of

discussion in the Ministry of Human Resources estimates and the

Ministry of Post-Secondary Education estimates.

The Ministry of Labour does have a variety of programs to assist

single parents and, indeed, other British Columbians in terms of their

ability to seek employment opportunities. The member talked about the

need for single parents to get into educational programs and areas of

non-traditional jobs and so on. We have programs available in the

Ministry of Labour and women's programs, along with our college network

across British Columbia that responds to the needs of the community in

terms of the programs that they may be able to deliver to the community.

The minister responsible for post-secondary education would be

better prepared to answer those questions. I'm glad that the member

talked about the pamphlet that was put out by the Ministry of Labour

women's programs, identifying areas of concern in the community,

because the Ministry of Labour does act in an advocacy role in the

ministry and in government with respect to the programs that need to be

developed to assist those groups. Without question, you don't just go

out and put a finger on a problem without doing some study on it.

There are difficult areas there. Some of the discussions that I've

had with a variety of women's groups across the province have been

brought to the government's attention. The Minister of Human Resources

did announce some changes in the human resource income assistance

program here during the sitting of the Legislature that are designed to

give individuals additional income through being able to keep more of

the money that they earn in the workplace.

There is funding in the Ministry of Labour women's programs in the

area of non-traditional jobs. We have a program in cooperation with the

Ministry of Human Resources income assistance program, and that has

been increased. We have a personnel placement program in the Ministry

of Labour women's programs as well, and the Ministry of Labour women's

programs office in Vancouver provides counselling services to those

groups in the community that need counselling.

[11:30]

At the present time, for the member's information, we're currently

will provide for us approximately $30 million that will be able to

assist us in helping in some of those areas. There are special training

projects and programs as well in the Ministry of Labour that are

designed to help women in particular, and those programs are available

and have provided significant benefits to a variety of people across

the province over the course of the past year. A lot of the women's

groups that I have talked to have commended us on the development of

those programs. I was seeking their

[ Page 7814 ]

advice on ways in which we could make those programs better serve their needs.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member talked about Challenge 85, the summer employment program,

and didn't know whether we announced the Challenge 86 program or not.

The Minister of Finance, for the member's information, did announce

that in the budget debate, and it is in the estimates. It is $10

million, the same as it was last year. That is in addition to the

approximately 15,000 to 17,000 jobs that will be created for young

people during Expo.

The Challenge 86 program was a concern to a lot of students across

British Columbia, and the youth advisory council made a presentation to

me on it. They were concerned that Challenge 86 might be cancelled

because of the increase in the number of employment opportunities that

would be created for young British Columbians at the Expo site. Their

advice to me was to continue with Challenge 86, which is a good program

for students. They were concerned that it would deprive young British

Columbians of the opportunity to work in the interior of British

Columbia. They were concerned that it would be around the Expo site

that the 17,000 were going to be employed and wanted to make sure that

opportunities for students would be developed in the interior of

British Columbia. I was indeed pleased that the Minister of Finance did

approve the $10 million for that program again this year. That is in

The member from North Island also talked about the program being

underspent. We do have a difficult time in that area. We are restricted

by legislation in some ways. What happens is that employers make

application for — or requisition, if you will — grants for ten

students, then use only three or four or five. In the meantime, the

Ministry of Labour staff is stuck with the additional request of ten

students. So what we are trying to do this year.... We always

overestimate the number of people that will be accessing the program.

We'll be overestimating again this year and trying to have faster

follow-up with the employer community to determine if they're going to

take the full amount that they have requested. It is a difficult

administrative area, and it is true that the program has been

underspent by about $1 million, or a little bit more, this year. Every

effort is being made by the ministry staff to get more people into the

workplace using that program and students.

MR. GABELMANN: I knew about the $10 million, I knew about the

Minister of Finance's statement, but I just expected that there would

be some real program this year.

If my memory is correct — in that announcement that that Nanaimo MP

made — the federal government is putting in $16.9 million. I could be

out on that, but that's my memory. The minister is saying that he's

going to accept $16.9 million from the federal government for B.C.

summer student employment programs but is going to contribute only $10

million from B.C. coffers. I assumed that what the Minister of Finance

was doing was providing a base and that the Minister of Labour would

use some of these other estimate figures to try to beef up a woefully

inadequate expenditure of money, underspent as it was.

If the program was having some benefit, you'd see it show in at

least two ways. You'd see, number one, a reduction in the number of

people, age 15 to 24, who are unemployed; we don't. You'd see it in

another way. You'd see more people going on to post-secondary education

because they had been able to afford it as a result of having a summer

job. We see fewer and fewer people going on to post-secondary education.

Doesn't the minister understand that those two facts — high

unemployment, the low participation rate — indicate that there is a

serious problem? It is a problem that $10 million will not solve. Nine

million dollars didn't solve it last year, and $9 million, or

approximately that the year before, didn't solve it. We're talking

about a crisis out there that requires money that.... It's worth at

least ten miles of road.

We spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars building and

reconstructing roads, but we can find $10 million for what is probably

among the greatest social tragedies that is happening and is going to

continue to happen if we don't find work for these people and money to

enable them to go to school. The fact that we have that low

participation rate in post-secondary education, and the fact that the

unemployment rate continues to hover around the 20 percent mark, tells

me that we should be adding three zeroes to that particular allocation.

A $100 million expenditure on youth employment programs — both student

and non-student — is not an inappropriate amount of money to spend in

this economy considering the gravity of that particular crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take a minute so that I understand

these estimates, because each year they get presented in a more and

more convoluted way and a more difficult way to understand, unlike the

old ways when we were able to identify precisely what money was

earmarked for. In the student employment programs vote, which is not

even in the Ministry of Labour votes for some reason — it comes back on

page 226 in the estimates, vote 79 — there is $10 million for the

general employment programs. I assume that's the $10 million that the

minister is talking about for the province's share of the $26.9 that's

being spent.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I see he has to look for advice about that.

I'm not surprised. The $5 million is a transition to employment

program. Tell me about that program. Who's directing it? What has been

developed? What are the criteria? Are there brochures out on that? How

much money is being spent? Who is it particularly targeted at? Tell us

about that transition to employment program.

And then tell me about the $10 million figure for assisted job

access programs in vote 55. Is that where the CJS money is going to be

coming from? Is that $10 million for the province's participation in

whatever agreement might be concluded with the federal government? Tell

us about the status of those negotiations. What is it that you don't

like about Ontario? If my memory is correct, they have a three-year

agreement with Ottawa for their CJS participation. What is it that you

don't like about it? No doubt there are things that we want to do

differently here in British Columbia. What are those things? What is

the thrust of the ministry's strategy in his negotiations with Ottawa?

What instructions has he given to his staff as to what they should

attempt to accomplish in terms of those particular negotiations, and

will it happen in

[ Page 7815 ]

this fiscal year? I mean, we're already into it. Tell us a little bit about it.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for North Island talked about

about a three-year agreement that Ontario has signed with the

money expires next year and there is no guarantee for money in year 2

and year 3. It's not the type of situation that I want to get into in

British Columbia with respect to negotiating a long-term program with

Quite frankly, I would have preferred that Ontario had discussed it

through the normal process with other governments across the country so

that we all could have been working together getting a better deal for

our province. I'm not sure whether their partner in government had any

influence in that direction. What I would like to do is make sure that

we have a long-term program in place. It's going to be extremely

difficult to do that now because of the Ontario agreement. Nevertheless

we're trying, and what we want to do is get the best deal we can for

the people of British Columbia.

The member talked about other programs in the Ministry of Labour,

the first-job access program and other areas. I've had a lot of

discussion with the Youth Advisory Council in those particular areas,

and they tell me the difficulty they've got is with young professionals

graduating from university with the marketplace being the way it is —

difficult to access a job. What we've tried to do there was develop a

program where we would be able to provide some opportunity for young

professionals to be able to go into, for example, an engineer's office,

provide opportunity for them to get a job for the first year in the

employment of that engineer, provide them with some assistance to do

so, get the particular company that they would be working for to be a

partner in that and assist those young professionals to obtain a

first-time job.

Now that program was announced in the budget debate, and I was

pleased to see that it was announced. Since that time there has been a

committee of deputies set up to develop the program. The program will

be developed in cooperation and consultation with professional

organizations across our province as we seek their advice and their

assistance in again helping these young British Columbians to help

themselves.

We have also developed a program where we will be able to provide an

on-the-job subsidy for young British Columbians who want to go into

other areas of trade development and skills. That too will be worked

out with the employer community. The apprenticeship training council

has been asked to have a look at the development of that program and

I've asked for their help and cooperation in the development of it as

well.

A variety of programs is in place, with as much flexibility as we

can in the development of those programs in order to provide as many

young people as possible the opportunity to access those programs. I

can't be more definite with the member in terms of how the program will

be developed. The program is being developed by a committee of deputies

now, and we've got the advice of the youth advisory council. We'll

continue to seek their advice and support in the development of those

programs, because all of the programs that we put together from a

bureaucratic point of view are not worth anything unless they have some

application in the workplace.

The member should also know that Manitoba has rejected the federal

government agreement and our part of the four western provinces

complex, but we would like to hang in there to get what we consider the

best deal for all of our constituents. As I said earlier, it is now

going to be difficult for us to have something different than Ontario,

because they did go ahead and sign that agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, l understand there is a

joint.... The minister mentioned Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and

British Columbia, and left out the Yukon. My understanding is that the

Yukon has been involved in this as well. Is the government of British

Columbia committed to joint action with the other three provinces and

the Yukon territory or are you leaving your options open to perhaps go

it alone?

[11:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It also involves the Northwest Territories.

I apologize for leaving out both the Yukon and the Northwest

Territories. We are continuing to work with those areas of jurisdiction

while maintaining flexibility to do our own.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the flexibility explain the fact that

occasionally joint telexes that go to Ottawa outlining the position of

the provinces sometimes fail to have the British Columbia signature on

them, and a couple of weeks later a telex goes down to confirm the B.C.

position, but in fact the initial one comes down with just the three

other provinces and not B.C.?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Telegrams are sent on behalf of all of the

western provinces and the two territories in that regard. There's a

lead province doing that work for us. British Columbia will become the

lead province in 1986, but that's my understanding of the way the

agreements are being worked out.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not an important issue, but it strikes me

as curious that I learn from various sources that this joint action

quite often doesn't include B.C., because B.C. Isn't always ready when

the other provinces are ready to present a position to Ottawa. It seems

to me that with the serious nature of the problem of unemployment and

the requirement for training and everything else that exists here,

you'd think B.C. would be anxious to conclude this particular

agreement, and would be taking the lead and not following Alberta,

Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I want to ask the minister whether or not it's true, in fact, that

under the CJS negotiations an umbrella agreement is not likely to be

signed until after the institutional training and apprenticeship

agreement is signed.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I have to apologize, but let me deal with

one thing first, okay, and that is the member's comment with respect to

the joint agreement. Let me say that B.C. has a good working

relationship with the other three western provinces and two

coordinated through those

[ Page 7816 ]

ministers' offices. Those ministers approve those

telexes before they're sent. So the member would do well to do his

homework and not lay those suspicions on the table with respect to

whether or not there is participation and cooperation between those

three levels of government.

Yes, they come from different political spectrums, but the

cooperation between the four and the two territories, without question,

is working, and will continue to work. B.C. will become the lead

province in 1986. I intend to carry out that same responsibility as set

by my predecessors where before we make a communication to the

offered to me — of phoning up those ministers and saying: "Is this

telegram okay with you to send out?" I don't see anything wrong with

that. That is our working relationship. And that will continue, hon.

member.

I apologize, because my staff were talking to me while you were talking to me about another program. Could you please repeat it.

MR. GABELMANN: No problem in repeating that, Mr. Chairman. I

would like the minister to take the lunch-hour to think about whether

he gave us the right answer. If I heard the minister correctly, he said

that in respect of the negotiations with CJS it was a united action on

the part of the four provinces and the two territories; that all

communications — telegrams, telexes — that come from western Canada,

going to Ottawa, are joint and are signed by everybody.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Signed, endorsed. What word do you want to

use? The minister might like to check the fact that there is great deal

of concern in the other provinces that British Columbia in fact isn't

committed to joint action; and in fact sometimes sends its telex ten

days later. The minister shakes his head. We'll see. I'll leave that

subject for now. You may want to come back later to clarify it.

Let me repeat the question that you didn't hear. It's a technical

question, but it's important, I think, in terms of trying to understand

how this government approaches the whole question of job creation and

training. Is the umbrella agreement, in respect of the Canadian job

strategy and the provincial participation, to be signed after the

institutional training and apprenticeship agreement is signed?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the time of the joint

agreement that would be signed is subject now to discussion between the

has been made with respect to that. As well, while the member talked

again about the Canadian job strategy program, we want a program, but

we're committed to those actions while maintaining the flexibility to

do our own stuff. We have to have that flexibility, hon. member,

because there are some unique areas and training programs that British

Columbia has developed. British Columbia has the best apprenticeship

training program in all of our country, developed jointly with industry

and unions and employers. It's been used as a model in many other areas

across the land. We'll maintain that flexibility to do our own stuff.

But all of the telexes and communications that go to the government of

Canada are passed through the Ministry of Labour and are endorsed by

the Ministry of Labour before they go.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to deal with the question of

apprenticeships and the level of standard here in this province later

on in these estimates, but just let me say in passing that if the

government is successful in driving the union contractor out of

business, there will no longer be a successful apprenticeship program

run by the industry and its trade unions in this province. You'd better

understand that, because one more term of this government and the

government will have full responsibility for developing apprenticeship

programs, because there will be no industrial plan out there any longer.

But let's get back to CJS.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scaremonger.

MR. GABELMANN: Scaremonger! God, you just have to drive

around. You just have to talk to the contractors who are going broke

and out of business.

Mr. Chairman, no one on this side of the House quarrels with the

need for British Columbia to have a distinctive program. We have

different industrial needs, we have greater problems, we have a

different economy, so there's no question at all about the fact that a

different program is required — a different agreement is required. But

I don't understand the lack of urgency. I don't understand the

minister's.... It seems to me that if the Minister of Labour were

concerned about the problem of unemployment, the problem of lack of

training and apprenticeship, he would have at the tip of his tongue all

of the answers in respect of this particular subject, because he would

be on top of it daily to make sure that the whole process was being

completed quickly. But he doesn't, because he doesn't know.

Mr. Chairman, I just want confirmation if I'm right or wrong: is it true that

the discussions include, as I mentioned before, institutional training and apprenticeship,

include subagreements on social-assistance recipients, agriculture and immigration?

Is that the sum total of the subjects under negotiation.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I think the member for North Island needs

time over lunch to have a bit of a break, because I already mentioned

the four-corner agreement that will be developed by the government of

Canada. It does cover all of those areas, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I think the member needs some time to do some research

and to check out his area of responsibility, because quite clearly,

he's not prepared. I think it's the influence of that $80,000 ten-pack

researcher that is sitting beside him that is causing him some problems.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the

minister confirm that those are the subject areas. He may well have

said it earlier, but in this part of the debate, when we're having the

discussion about CJS, it would be useful for me to have it all in one

place in the Hansard . It would be useful for me to know whether the

minister has any other areas under discussion. In the negotiations, is

an effort

[ Page 7817 ]

being made to include other areas, or to de-emphasize some of these areas that I've mentioned? What's going on?

What's going on? Why can't you be more forthcoming to this House

about these discussions? They're very important, and the fiscal year

has already started. The programs should be in place.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada