Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 12

Part 1

[ Page 6505 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to introduce Hon. Peter G. Foss, QC, who is sitting on the floor of the House. He's the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for Western Australia. Could the House please make him welcome.

P. Nettleton: I would ask members to join me in welcoming this afternoon, Ron Timothy, here from Fort St. James. He's representing Fort St. James, and he'll be meeting with various officials from a couple of ministries this afternoon. So again, it's Ron Timothy, all the way from Fort St. James.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to be able to introduce some visitors to the gallery today: the Hon. Ian Baker, MP in the Parliament of Victoria, from Melbourne, Australia. Also in the gallery is Mr. Colin Markham, MP, and his wife Melissa. They're visiting from Sydney, Australia. Mr. Markham is a member of the New South Wales parliament in Sydney. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: Another one of those rare occasions where I get to introduce some folks from Fort St. John. A good friend of mine, Margie Radcliffe, is here visiting from Fort St. John along with her sister Mary-Anne Couillard. Along with them is their mother, from Alberta, Anna Spurgeon, and Rosemary Lenglet -- another sister -- and Betty Chisan. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: To my colleague, Fort St. John may be a far distance away, but I'm welcoming a visitor here from Israel, Barry Bristman. Actually, Barry is no stranger to what we do in this place. Until a year ago, he was my constituency assistant, a job he did with great competence if not always humility. [Laughter.] Barry is actually completing his doctorate in international relations at the Tel Aviv University. Would the House please make him welcome.

L. Reid: There is someone in this gallery who is very near and dear to most of us, because he spent many years caring for the members of this Legislature. I would ask the House to please welcome Alistair, known more fondly to us as Red.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are three guests in the gallery today -- I'm not sure that it's a contest about how far away people are from -- that I would like to introduce and have people welcome. Mr. Mohinder Singh Gill, who for 31 years and actually until very recently has been an active Member of Parliament in the Punjab. He started his career in politics at the age of 20 and served until as recently as last February. He made many, many contributions to the parliamentary system in the Punjab. Accompanying Mr. Gill are Nirmal Walia and Ajmer Singh, who is actually from my riding. I'd ask the House to say sat sri akal and welcome.

M. de Jong: Jono Rushton is a young man who has become a good friend of mine over the past years. He's also the son of Mark Rushton, who works with us in the opposition caucus. He is here, and I hope members will make him welcome. George Peary is also in the building, at least, and I think in the gallery. He is a long-standing councillor for the city of Abbotsford. He is the chair of the regional health board, and a whole generation of students know him most affectionately as their principal and mentor. I hope members will make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I note that in the gallery there are two friends and constituents of mine from Ladysmith. Like the member from the North Peace, I don't have people down here very often -- not because it's far away, but just because it's so great in Ladysmith that you don't need to come down here. I'd like to ask the House to help me welcome Andy and Inez McKinley.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Steven Greenaway. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome. I know him as a very dedicated community volunteer with the Okanagan Foundation.

H. Lali: I would also like to take this opportunity to join the hon. Minister for Children and Families in welcoming the three guests she mentioned: Mr. Mohinder Singh Gill, Mr. Nirmal Walia and Ajmer Singh. I just want to point out a couple of little facts. Mr. Gill was elected the youngest MLA, at age 27, in the Punjab. Also, at age 31 he was elected the youngest Member of Parliament in India. He was also the youngest president of the Punjab Congress Party and recently, from 1992 until '97, a Minister of Agriculture in the government of Punjab. So I too would like to join the Minister for Children and Families in welcoming our guests.

F. Gingell: I would like to welcome to the gallery today, Valerie Braunschweig. She is president of the Esquimalt-Metchosin Liberal riding association. She's president of the Credit Association of Victoria, vice-president of the Credit Association of Canada and director for the International Credit Association. She is joined today in the gallery by Mr. Michael Yarr, comptroller of the Empress Hotel, who hopes you'll all give his establishment your business. I ask you all to join me in making them both welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Often we get up and ask the House to welcome people who are responsible for our being here. Today I'd like to take that a step further and ask the House to welcome one of two people responsible for my very existence, my mother Maureen Paterson.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today is a long-time member of the Indo-Canadian community here in Victoria and on Vancouver Island who is visiting the Legislature -- and hasn't done that for several years. Joining him is his son. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Mr. Nim Sundher and Ashmir Sundher.

Introduction of Bills

BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT

J. Weisbeck presented a bill intituled Boat Operators Certification Act.

J. Weisbeck: This bill states: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person shall not operate a motorized recreational vessel upon the waters of the Province unless that person holds a valid boat operator's certificate." Currently, anyone of any age can get into a boat of any size and any horsepower, with absolutely no driver training, and operate that vessel. This act would place age and horsepower restrictions on those eligible for this certification.

Data collected by the Canadian Coast Guard show that between 1992 and 1995, 152 boat-related fatalities occurred in

[ Page 6506 ]

the province of British Columbia. In 1996, over 2,000 boat-related incidents and 36 fatalities were reported by the Coast Guard. Statistics have shown that those jurisdictions which have implemented mandatory certification and testing have realized a decrease of fatalities of 20 to 30 percent. This would obviously have a huge impact in giving some relief to our already overstressed health care system.

Every person who applies for boat operator certification under this act shall have successfully completed training under the guidelines of a basic boating standard which is Canadian Coast Guard approved.

The intent of this bill is to educate boat operators in this province in order to improve safety on our waters and, by doing that, to save lives.

Bill M210 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.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

STANDARD OF CARE

AND SECURITY AT RECOVERY HOUSES

R. Coleman: My question is to the Attorney General. The RCMP have confirmed a death at the Unity men's recovery house in Surrey. On Friday, during a meeting at the house, a man was obviously high. At 1 a.m. he was alive. The RCMP were called at 8:41 a.m., and the man was dead. The RCMP have said that this death has indications of a possible drug overdose. There seems to be no supervision and no standards of practice. Will the Attorney General today immediately commence an investigation into this death at the Unity men's recovery house and into all recovery houses and their operations in general?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue around recovery houses was raised yesterday, and I took that on notice.

I want to say to the House that it is not the Attorney General ministry that funds these recovery houses. I also want to say to the House that this is the first that I'm hearing of this particular incident that the hon. member raises. Obviously the coroner's office has the obligation to look at the issue and decide whether or not to hold an inquest. If the coroner's office, within a reasonable time, decides not to hold an inquest and if the Attorney General considers it appropriate to have an inquest held, it can be ordered, and I would be so inclined at the end of the day.

I want to let the process of the coroner proceed, and at the end of the day, I'll make that decision if the coroner doesn't proceed.

R. Coleman: My next question is to the Minister for Children and Families. This morning I heard of the plight of a 17-year-old girl named May. May has been staying at the Unity women's recovery house in Surrey for the past ten days. This house is run by the same people that run the Unity men's recovery house. May has left Unity because there is no food at the house for her to eat. She has now tried to get into another house, but Unity will not give back to her the two-thirds of her social assistance cheque that was signed over. She is effectively out on the street. This is a 17-year-old child that is crying for help.

Will the Minister for Children and Families, whose office has been contacted, tell us what she is doing to help this child and what she is doing to keep children out of adult recovery houses in our province?

Hon. P. Priddy: I do not have the details of the particular young woman that the member refers to, but I'm very concerned both about youth in adult homes and about the issue of unlicensed homes. We are taking some action in the ministry around the issue of unlicensed homes or beds that are out there. We make every effort. There are youth beds in our province, and we will obviously follow up on the particular information that the member has given us. We will do that as soon as question period is over.

G. Plant: Yesterday we asked why provincial government social assistance cheques were ending up in the hands of private, unlicensed drug and alcohol recovery houses run by unqualified and untrained individuals, and we learned that in one case a recovery house was being operated by an individual recently convicted of drug trafficking. Now we have learned that another recovery house, called Step by Step Recovery House, is being run by a woman who has been convicted of attempted murder, extortion, kidnapping and unlawful confinement.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources: can he tell us why this recovery house continues to receive government social assistance cheques?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to make this as clear as I can for the members opposite: the Ministry of Human Resources doesn't fund recovery homes. The Ministry of Human Resources funds individuals, and in some cases these individuals make free choices to reside or stay at what the Liberal opposition is calling "recovery homes." The mandate of this ministry doesn't include the right to inspect the accommodations of the clients of this ministry. And as well . . . . I'll leave it at that.

G. Plant: We're playing the game of "find the minister" -- that is, find someone in the government who will take responsibility for this issue.

Not only is the government sending income assistance cheques to a recovery house operated by a convicted felon, but the Corrections branch is continuing to send people to that recovery house. So my question for the Attorney General is: can he explain to us why his ministry is sending criminals on probation to recovery houses run by convicted criminals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Most of the drug and alcohol programs that the Attorney General ministry runs are in-house within the institutions.

The opposition raised the issue yesterday, and they were misleading the House yesterday. Let me say what the facts were about the issue yesterday. Mr. Tanguay, I'm advised, whose name was mentioned in the House, was charged with trafficking cocaine. As a condition of bail he was not permitted to go to Surrey. I am advised that correctional staff did not refer Mr. Tanguay to the Clean Cartel recovery program. He asked courts on his own initiative, and the courts amended the condition to allow him to go into Surrey to attend the program.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister, I'm reluctant to interrupt, but I believe . . . .

[ Page 6507 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! I'm trying to clarify.

Attorney, if you are answering the question that was given yesterday, I'm sorry, we can't allow that at this point. We'll have to . . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the reason I'm giving this answer is because the same question was asked yesterday about a different house, about a different individual, and I . . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry, minister; I don't think I can allow you that latitude and that discretion.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, then let me just say that I will look into this particular house that the hon. member has mentioned. I don't have at my disposal all of the information about all of the houses. But the Ministry of Attorney General, in situations where they have been paroled, doesn't have much control over where individuals choose to live unless the Parole Board attaches conditions to where they ought to be living. Parole Board is an independent, quasi-judicial function, and if the hon. member doesn't know that, perhaps we need to go back to law school.

STOCKPILING OF

MOTOR FUEL ADDITIVE (MMT)

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The use of the gasoline additive MMT decreases air quality and harms people's health. The federal government recognized the concerns and passed Bill C-29 prohibiting the importation and interprovincial transport of MMT. Yet we've been informed that here in British Columbia the refining industry has stockpiled MMT in order to avoid the June 24 deadline. Such stockpiling means that MMT will be used as an octane enhancer long after the legislation has come into effect.

Has the minister investigated the claims that B.C. refiners have indeed deliberately stockpiled MMT and that that octane enhancer may be used for as long as the next 24 months, based on the stockpiles that are in place?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the member -- in a limited way, however. I'm afraid I am not immediately aware of the concern that he raises in the House today. But given the information, I take very seriously what the member raises as an issue. I'll immediately look into it and see what we can do to limit the ability for that to happen.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental. I appreciate the undertaking by the minister. The Premier was aware of this concern earlier this year. In a letter he stated: " . . . we are concerned that the use of . . . MMT will affect the performance of emission-control equipment in new vehicles. The optimal performance of these systems is critical to British Columbia ensuring its air quality goals are achieved." The Premier obviously agreed that we should get rid of MMT. His government, with the support of the previous minister, supported Bill C-29.

Will the government ensure that refiners are not allowed to circumvent the law and continue to pollute the air of British Columbia with an octane enhancer that doesn't work with new vehicles? Our government, I believe, has an obligation to make sure that doesn't happen. At the same time, we have an opportunity to promote the use of ethanol, which is a far superior additive.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. We're going beyond the question, I think.

J. Weisgerber: Would the Premier, if he wishes, respond?

Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, the rule changes are federal legislation, and so if there's some loophole in the legislation or some way that we can deal with it, we'll be happy to look into it. As the Minister of Environment said, if there's some other way the province can intervene to try to limit the ability to stockpile and therefore circumvent the federal legislation, we'll do that, as well.

As the member knows, we've had many debates -- including when he was the Minister of Energy -- where I've been a strong proponent of the use of ethanol as an additive to gasoline and the ability to reduce the emissions thereof. Of course, we know the member for Delta South shares that view.

STANDARD OF CARE

AND SECURITY AT RECOVERY HOMES

B. McKinnon: Anybody could start up a recovery house simply by renting a house, putting a few cots inside and then finding clients willing to sign over their $500-a-month social assistance cheques. One woman who rented her home to a recovery house not only suffered $30,000 worth of damage but had to bring in the RCMP drug dog to sniff out all the drugs and paraphernalia hidden in her walls.

Can the Minister of Human Resources tell us if his ministry is sending welfare cheques to drug recovery houses, or is he sending welfare cheques to crack houses?

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the script must be read. The answer to my first five or six or seven questions on this is exactly the same, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We're going to hear the answer -- and order especially to Parksville-Qualicum and West Vancouver-Capilano.

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer hasn't changed. This ministry does not fund these homes, whether they be boarding homes or recovery homes. The participation this ministry has with recovering addicts is when an individual is in a facility that's funded by the Ministry for Children and Families. We do pay a per diem rate for those individuals if they're in need of treatment or in need of recovery. We don't refer our clients to recovery homes. Indeed, our financial assistance workers don't possess the medical expertise to diagnose and recommend treatment. We fund people; we don't fund homes.

B. McKinnon: This minister says that he may not fund homes, but he does send out the cheques. Christine Eden of Surrey said that she told the minister's office that the recovery house was no longer located at that address. Nevertheless, 15 pieces of mail arrived from Social Services, many of them welfare cheques.

Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us whether his ministry has launched an investigation into welfare fraud at these fly-by-night recovery houses?

[ Page 6508 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: If the member opposite has evidence that there is fraud being perpetrated on the ministry, she has an obligation to bring it forward, within or without question . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Bark, bark, bark.

Hon. Speaker, clients of this ministry choose to live in various places. It's not the ministry's mandate to inspect the accommodations that our clients choose. If this happens to be their mailing address, I would expect that in some way or another . . . . If they have asked that the ministry forward a portion of their rent, as we do in many, many rental situations, that's what the ministry does at the request of the client. We don't fund houses.

[2:30]

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

FOR B.C. TRANSIT CHAIR

D. Symons: A change of pace here. During the estimates process, I asked the minister responsible for B.C. Transit about the contract between Transit and a Mr. Don Jantzen. In response, the minister said: "Mr. Jantzen is on contract to provide labour relations advice." Yet I've received FOI documents which state that Mr. Jantzen's title at Transit was executive assistant to the chair.

Can the minister tell us why on earth the now-deposed part-time Transit chair, Derek Corrigan, would need a $65,000 executive assistant?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The answer I gave in estimates is accurate and stands.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

B. Penner: I seek leave to table a petition.

The Speaker: No leave is required. Please proceed.

B. Penner: It is my pleasure to table what may be the largest petition of this session. It's a petition signed by 14,081 residents of the Upper Fraser Valley, indicating their opposition to any move by the NDP government to close the Chilliwack courthouse.

G. Wilson: I rise to table a petition. This petition has 2,012 signatures. It is a petition to the government, respectfully requesting the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to retain the current moratorium on salmon aquaculture development until such time as new regulations are in place.

G. Brewin: On behalf of the Speaker, I wish to table a petition from a number of constituents who live in Nanaimo. It's on Bill C-68, a federal act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Reports from Committees

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move the report be adopted. It deals entirely with the issues of the disposal and retention of government documents, and I commend it to members of the Legislature to read.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the pleasure to present the '96-97 annual report of B.C. Transit.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have the pleasure to submit the fiscal 1995-96 annual reports of the Ministry of Labour.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members of the Legislature, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 47, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 47; E. Walsh in the chair.

section 78 as amended (continued).

T. Nebbeling: When we finished the morning session, we were talking about the economic test. I'd like the minister to give me a kind of overview on how the district manager looks at the plan and then considers this economic value. What will bring the minister to a level that he is satisfied that indeed the issue has been adequately addressed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under this provision, there will be regulations that need to be brought in. It's

section 125 of this bill.

Let me give you an example. Under the jobs and timber accord, there's a commitment to provide more wood ahead in approved cutting permits.

Section 41(1)(

c) would justify bringing an area forward that would not have been developed right away by reducing visual restrictions, for example, in the area while still adequately managing and conserving forest resources for the area. It would be the conditions under which you could bring in a higher-level plan, a landscape plan or a particular development plan that rearranges the priorities in the area.

T. Nebbeling: This whole economic test, I believe, was added to the process to give communities a sense of being

[ Page 6509 ]

incorporated in the assessment of a land mass that is for harvesting pulp. In that sense, it is a very positive move. However, can this particular

section then also actually be used by the district managers to come to the conclusion that a certain cut should not happen because the other values that apply to that land's higher-level plan would actually reduce an amount of timber from an area, making it financially less productive or financially less viable? Is that the other side of the coin, as well, when it comes to this consideration?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it could, theoretically. But the whole idea of putting in an economic test would mean that you can't recommend helicopter logging if it's not viable; you can't recommend selection logging if it's not viable -- even clearcutting, for that matter. So there has to be consideration of a broad range of economic issues.

I think it would be a case of the district manager having to show judgment as to the balance of provincial economic interests in an area. While it could cut both ways in practice, other economic values often are protected by not logging. In this case, it's trying to find a way that you can protect logging and not do undue damage to other economic values at the same time. In particular, there will be a balance within economic values but also between economic values and the values of conserving the forest resource.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the answers from the minister. After all, it is the district manager who will ultimately make the decision. From time to time we see decisions made by district managers where we question what is behind the decision. It could indeed be used the wrong way, and I don't think there is anything we can do to stop that from happening in the future. I hope that it will not, but the way the

section is written, it will certainly allow that.

Having said that, one more question. I tried to get the answer this morning, and I don't believe the minister gave it to me: that is, the potential conflict between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment when it comes to the final adoption or approval of a plan. Who, in the end, will have the jurisdiction to overrule the other party? Is it the environmental officer, or is it the district manager? Or is there a third party that would be petitioned?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be assistance sought if they can't resolve it, but there is an agreement that they do resolve it. The legal power is in the hands of the district manager and the designated environmental officer. That tension is put into the approvals, particularly in the sensitive areas, to end with a resolution that does balance those interests. So the legal power is at the district level, but they can get assistance to mediate at higher levels.

Section 78 as amended approved.

Section 79 approved.

section 80.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 80 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 80, in the proposed

section 43 (1) (

c) by deleting "materially changes" and substituting "does not materially change".]

Amendment approved.

Section 80 as amended approved.

section 81.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 81 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 81, in the proposed

section 45 (2) (a) (

i) by striking out "48.1," and substituting "48.1".]

Amendment approved.

Section 81 as amended approved.

Section 82 approved.

section 83.

T. Nebbeling: The disturbance of soil in the forest during harvesting periods has been very contentious, as the minister is well aware. This often led to forest workers not being able to go into the forest. Up to now, I believe, the code has been quite specific as to what type of soil erosion could happen during certain periods of the year. When the imprint of a tire was more than an inch, for example, the operation had to stop. We had to wait for drier weather to avoid this kind of impression in the land. That's just one example.

With this particular section, there isn't latitude given to anybody. First of all, who would be responsible for approving the erosion or -- maybe a better word -- the soil disturbance? Who would approve the soil disturbance to exceed a certain limit? What kind of guidelines are there to be used, or is it purely a judgment call?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be the district manager that approves the level of soil disturbance in the silviculture plan, and he would approve it only if it can be rehabilitated.

T. Nebbeling: If there's an expectation that indeed soil disturbance will happen and a certain level will be acceptable, the only way that we can make sure that the level of disturbance that has been approved by the district manager is not excessive would be through strict enforcement and monitoring. Is this particular

section not going to be a trouble creator? It will be almost impossible to have somebody on site permanently to make sure that soil disturbance doesn't exceed the permitted depth or exceed the limits as set. What would happen if an operation is in full swing, some soil disturbance does happen and a forest officer comes by and sees that the level has exceeded the allowed level? Would that mean the operation would be shut down again? Is this not going to be very complicated and labour-intensive from a monitoring perspective? Or is the right question: can this actually be enforced on this basis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no substantive change as a result of this section. I'm told that we haven't had a problem to date. I would just get on the record that as the logging plan will no longer be required in most circumstances, the reason this is here is because the

section needed to be redrafted to eliminate references to the logging plans.

Sections 83 and 84 approved.

section 85.

[ Page 6510 ]

T. Nebbeling: A quick clarification on the wording "exceptional circumstances." Can the minister give me an idea of what would be an exceptional circumstance in this particular section?

[2:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The exceptions would be, typically, a licence to cut -- which you know is a minor amendment -- and some road permits.

Sections 85 to 90 inclusive approved.

section 91.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 91 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 91, in the proposed

section 63 (6) by deleting everything after "Section 63 (6) is amended by striking out" and substituting " "a forest development plan or an access management plan." and substituting "a forest development plan.".".]

Amendment approved.

Section 91 as amended approved.

Section 92 approved.

section 93.

T. Nebbeling: This is a

section which I should really have asked for a technical briefing on because I don't get it. Can the minister give me a quick run over what exactly the intent is of this section, especially on the last part -- the setting of the limit on excavated and bladed trails.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These amendments are consequential to the changes in the silviculture prescription provisions. As you know, they'll make the prescription more results-oriented and less concerned about the methods to achieve the results. This is the part of the ministry initiative to reduce the administrative burden, and it's supported by industry and the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters.

Sections 93 and 94 approved.

section 95.

T. Nebbeling: Here again is one of these situations where I do not have an answer on how, ultimately, under this

section the silviculture activities in backlog areas . . . . If indeed the contractor of this work does not fulfil its mandate or doesn't achieve its mandate and then walks away from the stand before it is a free-growing stand, and if there are no assets, who would be responsible for the costs of producing that land to the status of a free-growing stand? Again, the question is asked to the minister because of Forest Renewal B.C.'s role in this particular plan.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Subsection (3.1) would ensure that those undertaking backlog silviculture work are only liable as long as the required work is funded by Forest Renewal B.C. If Forest Renewal does not continue to fund the contractor for work, then the government is liable for establishing the free-growing stand. So your question was: what if the contractor doesn't do its job? Then FRBC would be. So there is going to be some requirement there to qualify the contractors. I'm not sure whether there is a bonding requirement, but the normal business practices would be entered into.

I'm not aware that it is a problem, but the final responsibility rests with FRBC, and if not with them, if they're no longer funding, then it would fall to government.

T. Nebbeling: Let's quickly go through what's happening here. Here's a backlog area that will be seeing some silviculture activities. There is an agreement made by FRBC to fund the contractor to do the work. For some reason, the contractor cannot fulfil its mandate of bringing it to a free-growing stand, in part because an agreement ends, although the agreement was obviously to bring it to that free-growing stand.

Then, when the contractor somehow gets his agreement cancelled, or it is no longer there, the government becomes responsible financially to bring in the team that will bring it to that free-growing stand. I believe that when the government says, "We the government will be responsible," it is saying Forest Renewal B.C. So Forest Renewal B.C. funds, cancels the contract and then funds again. I don't see logic in this

section because of that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps this explanation would make it a little easier. Subsection (3.2) allows government to require FRBC to pay for this work if the obligation is assumed by government. But if there is a default by a contractor, we would take their security deposit, which would cover any damages.

Sections 95 and 96 approved.

section 97.

J. Wilson: I take it that any changes to a silviculture prescription that would be presented by a district manager on a woodlot here would only apply to Forest Renewal projects. Would there be any exceptions?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me explain this section. This amendment is needed to deliver the new FRBC delivery model. At present the district manager is responsible for carrying out brushing treatments on restocked but not free-growing areas which were harvested prior to '87. Under the new Forest Renewal delivery model, Forest Renewal will contract directly with the licensees to do this work. This amendment makes sure that in carrying out these treatments, Forest Renewal does so in accordance with the code and with the district manager's discretion.

T. Nebbeling: One quick question on this one. I get a feeling that in a sense the approval for this work . . . . Would that not be given in advance, at the time the whole major woodlot licence is going through a review process, rather than when it is in process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This doesn't have anything to do with the licence. It has to do with the FRBC work on the licensed area. Any time a district manager may decide that a treatment is desirable and needs to be done, in which case FRBC would be approached for the funding . . . . Then, if it's approved, the district manager would approve the prescription under which the work is done.

Sections 97 to 99 inclusive approved.

section 100.

[ Page 6511 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 100 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 100, by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (

f) and by deleting the proposed

section 96 (1) (

g) and substituting the following:

(

g) by the regulations, in the course of carrying out activities

(

i) under a range use plan or a consent under

section 101 or 102,

(ii) under a silviculture prescription for a backlog area or a stand management prescription,

(iii) under an approval of the district manager under

section 48.1 or 71.1, or

(iv) under an agreement described in

section 64 (1.1).]

Amendment approved.

Section 100 as amended approved.

section 101.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 101 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 101 (a), in the proposed

section 101 (1) (

b) by deleting ", and".

SECTION 101 (b), by deleting the proposed

section 101 (1.1) and (1.2) and substituting the following:

(1.1) The district manager may

(

a) require a person seeking consent under subsection (1) to submit the matter for which consent is sought to a review in accordance with the regulations, and for comments by interested parties during the course of the review,

(

b) grant or refuse the consent, depending on the outcome of a review required under paragraph (a), and

(

c) impose requirements, that the district manager considers necessary or desirable, to be met by the person seeking the consent as a condition of obtaining or retaining the consent, including, but not limited to, requiring that the person provide security.

(1.11) The district manager may only grant a consent under this

section if

(

a) the consent is consistent with any operational plans and higher level plans in effect for the area covered by the consent, and

(

b) the district manager is satisfied that the consent will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies.

(1.12) If the district manager requires security under subsection (1.1) (c), the district manager must specify

(

a) when the security must be paid,

(

b) the amount of security that is required,

(

c) the form of the security, and

(

d) the circumstances under which the security may be realized.

(1.2) A person who obtains consent under subsection (1) must comply with any conditions imposed under subsection (1.1) in respect of the consent. , and

(

c) in subsection (2) by striking out "subsection (1)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (1.2)".]

J. Wilson: I had a question on

section 100,

section 96; it's under (1)(b). Does this mean that no one can do anything to standing timber on Crown-granted land when this comes into effect?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, (1)(b) . . . . This is exactly what's in the act now. There's no change to the legal provision. This just incorporates the sections of the act that are existing.

J. Wilson: Am I to understand, then, that if someone wished to take some timber that is on a piece of Crown-granted land and construct a building, some fence or whatever, they would require permission from the minister before they could proceed with any work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Only if the Crown grant didn't grant the timber.

Amendment approved.

Section 101 as amended approved.

J. Wilson: In

section 101, could the minister explain . . . ?

The Chair: Member, we have passed

section 101. We are on

section 102.

J. Wilson: Oh, I'm sorry; I'm behind here, then. I was of the understanding that we were on 100, and then we went to 101.

The Chair: If you have a question, go ahead and ask the question.

J. Wilson: In 101(1.1), could the minister explain this paragraph to me?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This new subsection enables the district manager to require a person seeking consent under

section 101 to make the request available for review and comment and impose other requirements on the consent, such as providing security. Depending on the outcome of the review, the district manager may grant or refuse to grant the consent.

Sections 102 to 104 inclusive approved.

section 105.

T. Nebbeling: My first question to the minister on this one is related to the words that appear in this

section quite often, and that is "due diligence." Can the minister give me the definition of due diligence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The common definition is all reasonable care, considering the circumstances. It can be defined in regulation but is commonly defined in the courts.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I'm asking that simple question is based on

section 105,

section 116.4(2), where the act actually states clearly what I find quite surprising: "The onus of proving due diligence is on the person who is the subject of the performance evaluation . . . . " So it's not like in our normal courts, you know, where you're innocent until proven guilty. Here we are talking about you being guilty unless you prove yourself innocent. I don't understand that. If indeed an evaluation takes place and it leads to an appeal down the road in front of the Forest Appeals Commission, this commission has powers almost like the Supreme Court.

Because of that, I would expect that the act would at least be written in such a form that, legally, it goes parallel with civil law and criminal law -- which is, as I said before, that you're innocent until proven guilty. Can the minister explain why this is the reverse under the act?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, due diligence is a defence, and this act, like other acts, is required by the courts to have the person using the defence prove it.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I don't want to argue, but to me, due diligence is not . . . . I mean, if there was a clear definition of

[ Page 6512 ]

due diligence, and you could say: "Okay, this is due diligence. If you go that way, you're working within due diligence; if you go over . . . . " It's very vague as a principle, and it's very vague as a definition. Any person would be subject to potentially unfair accusations under this due diligence clause and then, basically, would be facing an array of penalties, unless that individual accused under this due diligence clause has a clear case that he or she has worked within due diligence principles.

The vagueness . . . . It's always going to be a subjective thing in my opinion, and that's why I do not see how we can accuse a person and find them guilty through a system before that individual can prove himself or herself innocent. I find this a very undemocratic and very unusual way of looking at right or wrong, considering that every other jurisdiction would have that principle reversed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the point of these amendments is to allow due diligence as a defence. If they've done all reasonable things that are required by common industry standards, then they can't be found to be at fault. I could give an example. If it's required that you take a soil sample before you build the road or that you do some stream measurements before you classify the stream, then those would be things that would have to be done. I can think of other examples. You might want to lay out a road and let it freeze if you're working on difficult soils; let it freeze for a couple of days before you run on it. There could be any number of things.

I don't think industry has any problem with defining due diligence. I think there's a common understanding about what these practices are. I mean, I'm sure people will dispute whether someone is duly diligent or not, but I don't believe there is a problem either from the contractors that I've spoken to or the associations we've consulted with about due diligence being a defence, because the court can have standards of practice presented, and those are generally accepted by the courts as the standards.

Section 105 approved.

section 106.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 106 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 106,

(

a) in the proposed

section 117 (2) (

a) by adding "or convictions" after "previous contraventions", and

(

b) in the proposed

section 117.3 (4) (a), (

b) and (c), by deleting "Forest Appeals Commission" and substituting "commission".]

Amendment approved.

Section 106 as amended approved.

section 107.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister quickly explain what this

section replaces in wording? I could not find any reason for the section, in the way it has been phrased and what it has substituted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Legislative counsel advised that we write the legislation this way so that the remediation orders can be put against the licensee as the responsible party. Even if the problem was created by a contractor, it's still the licensee's responsibility. It's written for legal clarity.

Sections 107 to 112 inclusive approved.

section 113.

T. Nebbeling: A quick question to the minister, based on a little bit of a dispute we had earlier on when we were talking about a review requested in written form, or just a review requested. Here again is one of these situations.

Section 113, paragraph (a)(2) reads: "The person must ensure that the request for review complies with the content requirements of the regulations." Again, I do not understand why any request for review or consideration is not done in writing so that it is proof that the request has been made, especially because in these cases there is a time limit for requesting either a review or information. So it is housekeeping, but I don't understand why "written" is left out of it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The legal advice is to keep the details in regulation as much as possible, so if we need to respond to a new circumstance we can.

Whereas if it's in the legislation, we have to wait for the legislative session and then for more regulations to be passed.

Sections 113 and 114 approved.

section 115.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 115 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 115, in the proposed

section 130 (1) and (2) by deleting "Forest Appeals Commission" and substituting "commission".]

Amendment approved.

Section 115 as amended approved.

Sections 116 to 122 inclusive approved.

section 123.

J. Wilson: Would the minister explain the difference between subsections (c), (

d) and (

e) in this section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You may want to refer again to some specific subsections, but this

section allows FRBC to pay for certain functions that are listed in here. It says that if you have an obligation under your licence, then the licensee has to pay. But this

section allows for FRBC to do certain things.

J. Wilson: I realize it is FRBC-funded. I would like to know if there is a difference between road construction or modification with regard to silviculture and road maintenance under

section 63(7) of the act. There is a difference there, I believe, and then in

section 123(3)(

e) we have road deactivation. Is this funding for the deactivation of the roads after they have been constructed or modified under

section 123(3)(

c) when the project is finished? Is that how that reads?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. It applies to different FRBC-funded road activities. It might be deactivation as part of a watershed restoration or: "(

c) road construction or modification under a special use permit . . . . " It might be there to get in to do some kind of silviculture activity. So it's to allow a full range of road activities, from rehabilitation to deactivation, as is necessary to conduct silviculture activities that otherwise aren't required of a licensee under law.

[ Page 6513 ]

Sections 123 to 125 inclusive approved.

section 126.

J. Wilson: I take it that any requirements or restrictions that would be imposed on a woodlot licence would be incorporated in their five-year management plan. Or would they be an addition to the existing plan? Or would they have come on at the renewal point of the plan? How does this affect the plan as it exists today?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is the intention that existing plans would live out their useful life. But if they were for some reason not useful anymore, then I'm sure the district manager could consider working on some kind of streamlining of the development plan. As you know, this

section is there to eliminate the hierarchy of plans, so in the normal course of events it would be upon renewal of any of the plans.

[3:15]

J. Wilson: There is a substantial cost related to repairing a plan. Would the cost of any adjustment or changes to a management plan that's in place be picked up through Forest Renewal? Or would it be left up to the woodlot owner to carry that additional cost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole idea was to streamline a number of plans. In fact, what will happen is that there will be a regulation which requires woodlot licence holders to not have to prepare a forest development plan and silviculture prescription. So there will be no additional cost. If they choose to redo a plan, for example, because they want to change the management, then they would have to bear the responsibility. But nothing in here requires them to do more planning than they had in place. In other words, the plans that exist can run out. When the next cycle comes up, the new regulation will kick in.

Sections 126 to 130 inclusive approved.

Section 131 negatived.

Sections 132 to 135 inclusive approved.

section 136.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to

section 136 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 136,

(

a) in the proposed

section 247 (1) by adding "or the silviculture prescription is replaced under this Act or the regulations" after "under the silviculture prescription",

(

b) in the proposed

section 247 (2) by adding "and to an amendment to that silviculture prescription" after "district manager before the date this

section comes into force", and

(

c) in the proposed

section 248 (1) (

b) by adding the following:

(vii) carrying out, constructing, modifying or maintaining a range development.]

Amendment approved.

section 136 as amended.

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain No. 4 in this section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no No. 4 in

section

Section 136 as amended approved.

Sections 137 to 139 inclusive approved.

section 140.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to

section 140 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 140, in the proposed

section 18 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 159, as amended by the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 1997,

(a) subsection (4.1) is amended by adding "approximate" after "this

section must identify the", and

(b) subsection (4.2) is amended by adding "approximate" after "the plan must identify the".]

Amendment approved.

Section 140 as amended approved.

section 141.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to

section 141 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 141(b), in the proposed subsection (1.2) is amended by adding "approximate" after "or woodlot licence must identify the".]

Amendment approved.

Section 141 as amended approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment that adds

section 141.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 141.1, by adding the following section:

141.1

Section 42 (2) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 159 as amended by the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, is repealed and the following substituted:

(2) If the district manager approves a forest development plan or amendment under subsection (1), the district manager may immediately approve a silviculture prescription or amendment if the district manager determines that

(

a) the prescription or amendment complies with the regulations and the standards, and

(

b) the timber on the area under prescription should be harvested without delay because it is in danger of being damaged, significantly reduced in value, lost or destroyed.]

Section 141.1 approved.

Sections 142 to 153 inclusive approved.

section 154.

J. Wilson: In

section 154 -- it's to deal with Evans Forest Products -- we have sections (1) and (2). They're identical except for the dates on the commencement years. One is January 30, 1996, and one is December 17, 1996. Could the minister explain what's involved here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple explanation for the dates is that these are the dates that were involved when the minister gave transfer to the particular licences here. This gives effect to an action under

section 56 of the act that says when a timber

[ Page 6514 ]

licence is transferred, the holder of the licence must pay the government 5 percent of the declared value of the timber licence or 5 percent of the appraised value of the licence. One of the conditions of both economic plans for Evans was that the government waive the requirements of

section 56. This provision is required to fulfil this commitment retroactively.

Sections 154 to 157 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment that adds

section 157.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 157.1, by adding the following section:

157.1 Despite

section 10 (1) (

d) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, a forest development plan that is submitted for the district manager's approval or given effect by the district manager on or before October 15, 1997 must meet the requirements of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the regulations and standards made under that Act that were in effect on June 15, 1997.]

Section 157.1 approved.

section 158.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to

section 158 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 158,

(a)

section 158 (1) (

b) and (

d) is deleted and the following substituted:

(

b) sections 2, 10, 12, 18 to 20, 26, 27, 27.1, 28 to 39, 43 (a), (

d) to (g), (

l) and (n), 44, 45 to 48, 49 (

b) and 50;

(b.1) that part of

section 53 that adds

section 10 (4) and (5) to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act;

(b.2) sections 54 (a), 55 (a), 62 to 64, 65 (

c) and (d), 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83 to 85, 90, 92, 93 (a), 94 (

b) and (c), 95 (

d) and (e), 96 to 98, 100, 105 to 118, 119 (

a) and 123 to 128;

(

d) sections 138 (b), 139, 141.1, 142, 143, 144 (

a) and (c), 145, 146, 147 (b), 151 (

d) and (e), 153, 155 and 157. , and

(b)

section 158 (3) and (6) is deleted and the following substituted:

(3) Sections 27.1 and 130 are deemed to have come into force on April 21, 1997 and are retroactive to the extent necessary to give them effect on and after that date.

(6) The following come into force on January 5, 1998:

(

a) sections 22 (a), 23 to 25, 58, 69, 79 (a), 82, 88, 89 (

a) and 91;

(

b) that part of

section 132 that repeals

section 236 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act;

(

c) that part of

section 136 enacting Division 7 of

Part 11;

(

d) sections 138 (a), 140, 141 and 144 (b).]

Amendment approved.

Section 158 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 47, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I'd like to make a couple of motions, if I could, please.

Leave granted.

Motions without Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

[ Page 6515 ]

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. Janssen -- Convener, Sihota, Stevenson and Waddell; Mesdames Brewin and Walsh; Messrs. Plant, Abbott and Weisbeck; and Ms. Whittred.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Police Complaints Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to

section 47 of the Police Act, 1997, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. Giesbrecht -- Convener, Orcherton, Calendino and Randall; Mesdames Brewin, Sawicki and Smallwood; Messrs. Plant, Coell and Coleman; and Ms. Reid and Mr. Weisgerber.

Leave granted.

Motion approved

[3:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that Mr. Mike de Jong, MLA, be substituted for Mr. Dan Jarvis, and Mr. Rick Kasper be substituted for Mr. Moe Sihota, as members on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 48.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 48; E. Walsh in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: I will wait just a moment, because I suspect there are staff coming to assist the minister.

There are a number of questions with respect to the establishment of the emergency communications service, which I gather is already to be known by the name E-Comm. Some of these questions are relatively general in nature, and I intend to ask them under the umbrella of

section 1, the

definitions section. I will certainly endeavour not to turn this into an estimates debate, but I think this does mark a significant occasion, on which the government is coming before the House to enable the creation of this new entity which is potentially going to play a significant role in the lives of people in at least southwestern British Columbia. So I hope the Attorney General will grant me just a bit of leeway here.

The

definitions include a definition of emergency communications corporation. I suppose there are two questions here, at least. First of all, has the corporation, which will serve as the organization for southwestern British Columbia, already, in fact, been established, or is its establishment awaiting passage of this act? I'll deal with that one first.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's awaiting the passage of this legislation.

G. Plant: The bill carefully uses the plural of corporation, and obviously contemplates the possibility that there will be created, in the fullness of time, more than one emergency communications corporation. I know of one that is planned and well underway -- the one for southwestern British Columbia, which I think will be called E-Comm. Does the government have any plans to create corporations for this purpose anywhere else in British Columbia at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no other plans in any other region, except that I can advise the hon. member that southern Vancouver Island is considering the creation of such a corporation. The impetus for this came from the municipality. The one we're dealing with now in southwestern British Columbia came essentially from the city of Vancouver and other areas. There might be some movement in that direction on Vancouver Island as well, and that's why the plural is used. This is enabling legislation that would allow regions to group themselves for the purposes of providing these services under the umbrella of a corporation.

G. Plant: For the time being, though, the only one that's in concrete form -- if I can put it that way -- is the one in southwestern British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I suppose that in the largest possible use of the term, what we're talking about is a corporation that will in effect be a form of partnership among a number of different service agencies in a number of different communities. I have seen published an indication of the agencies that are already on board for the one in the lower mainland.

[ Page 6516 ]

As I understand it, this includes the city of Vancouver fire and police, the RCMP and agencies within the GVRD. I believe it also includes the ambulance service for at least the lower mainland, but it does not yet include Surrey, Burnaby or Port Coquitlam. I may be out of date on this, and if I am, then I'm sure the minister will correct me. If I'm not, could the minister explain from his perspective how he sees overcoming what looks to me like an obstacle in terms of the non-participation of three significant municipalities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With Surrey, Burnaby and Port Coquitlam councils not fully agreeing to participate in this, it obviously does raise some issues. These three jurisdictions are all policed, however, by the RCMP, and the RCMP are a part of the wide-area radio network. The RCMP would, in a sense, therefore be participating from those three jurisdictions in the communications centre.

I understand that Port Coquitlam council has yet to consider the issue, and they may decide to participate. They know that the RCMP would be participating. Surrey, as the hon. member knows, is quite vocal in its position of not wanting to participate, and I appreciate that. I'm not particularly sure where the Burnaby council is at. They haven't made a decision as yet.

I have said very clearly that I want to persuade all these entities to participate fully. It is in the best interests of all the people in the lower mainland and in southwestern British Columbia that we have an integrated dispatch system and coordinated fire, ambulance and police dispatch as well as a wide-area radio network.

As the hon. member knows, this legislation does not contain a provision whereby the Attorney General can force an entity to participate. That provision, I can tell the hon. member, was included in this legislation. We took it out because we want to make sure that we allow municipalities and entities to decide on their own to participate, and because at the end of the day, it's the right thing to do.

If, however -- and I have said this publicly -- a year or two down the road, it appears that we need to have a municipality that may not be participating actually participate in this for the good of all, obviously the Legislature has the discretion at that point to bring the provision back in and include it. I would hope that we don't have to do that, because voluntary participation is what really makes it work wonderfully. I would hope that His Worship, the mayor of Surrey, is listening to us and that he listens to us carefully and changes his mind.

The Chair: I'll remind the hon. member that we had the debate in second reading, and we are now in committee on

section 1.

G. Plant: Yes, I was going to say in response to what the Attorney General just said that I wonder if anyone is listening to us, but I'm sure if anyone is, the mayor of Surrey will be.

Interjection.

G. Plant: No, as the saying goes, I think we won't go down that road.

For the benefit of the hon. Chair, we're here debating, among other things, the content and the definition of the emergency services agency, so that's where the hon. Chair can hang the hat of relevance if she is worried.

I want to pursue one step further the consequences for service delivery if, for example, Surrey does not come on board. If we have the ambulance service in, we have it in as a provincial entity. If we have the RCMP in, then we have the RCMP in, as the minister indicates, for Surrey. We would not have the fire department, I take it, and essentially that would be the major omission.

The issue then arises of how a coordinated dispatch service would work with those gaps in it. Rather than having a long technical discussion, I take it that the short answer is that it wouldn't work as well as it could, and that's why it's important that the thing be set up in a way that encourages everyone to get on board. Is that a fairly accurate

summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is. I think that the citizens of entities such as Surrey need to know that this is not simply an E-Comm for dispatch, the wide-area network and the like. There are also the backup facilities so that in times of disaster, you would have the ability, which would survive that disaster, to coordinate these services across this region. This is going to be a fairly expensive state-of-the-art facility for the region, and I think it's important for all of us to participate in it.

G. Plant: I'm looking again at the

definitions. Am I correct in my understanding that the emergency response aspect, at least, of the provincial emergency program will be rolled into this in southwestern British Columbia? Will the offices of the provincial emergency program be moved into the building that is being constructed in Vancouver? Is that where the program will operate out of for at least southwest Vancouver?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, for the southwest region.

G. Plant: I'm sorry. I said southwest Vancouver, but I meant southwest British Columbia -- the area that goes at least up to Pemberton or Sechelt and out as far as Hope, I think, if not all the way up to Boston Bar.

The definition of an emergency services agency includes organizations operating fire departments. As I read some of the material I've seen, around the composition of the board of this corporation, it doesn't appear that there is any specific spot on the board set aside for fire departments. Is there a rationale for that that the minister could share with us?

[3:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They are not represented on the board. The municipalities would be represented on the board, therefore you have the indirect representation of the fire department for each of the municipalities. But the user committees or user groups that would be advising the board would be represented.

G. Plant: One other question about

section 1, if I may. The term "members' agreement" is really a jumping-off point for the question. I have seen a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Health and the city of Vancouver, which I think is the means by which the ambulance service becomes part of this undertaking. The way that the term members' agreement is defined, it contemplates a number of different agreements, and I foresee the possibility that there may be a number of different overlapping agreements between different service providers undertaking different obligations with respect to each other.

Obviously, part of the context is that some of these services are -- and I don't know if this is the right way to put it -- surrendering some of the autonomy they now have over decision-making in respect of

[ Page 6517 ]

how they provide their services, and they are surrendering it in the interests of obtaining a much more efficient, effective, up-to-date service that will serve their needs as well as the needs of others.

I hope it is the intention to eventually create a sort of master agreement that all of the participants in this undertaking will subscribe to so that there isn't any risk of conflicting obligations.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This provision does envisage, essentially, a master agreement, maybe with variations for each participant on some minor issues. Essentially what's anticipated is that there would be one agreement. Within the context of that agreement, as the participants enter, there might be variations as to their participation. But the general terms would apply to everyone. That's the understanding that I have.

G. Plant: I omitted one more question I had about

section

Section 1 defines as a government agency -- includes in that definition -- federal government agencies. I can think, for example, of the Coast Guard. There are federal government emergency response organizations that would come into play in some cases in the lower mainland in southwestern British Columbia. Perhaps I could get a brief progress report on whether or not it's expected to try and bring some of these organizations into the corporation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Currently only the RCMP is; we're anticipating only the RCMP. That is a federal agency that would participate. But Coast Guard has expressed some interest, and they may be participating in the future.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Plant: Two questions here; the first is the way that the purposes are set out. It talks about the corporation having as its primary purpose the provision of services to its members, but also allows the corporation to have the purpose of providing similar services to people or entities that are not its members. So this would be a way of, I suppose, dealing with recalcitrant municipalities, at least for the purpose of defining the corporate powers and objects. I wonder if that's what the

section is intended to do. I invite the minister to tell me that.

Well, there are three questions. Secondly, what is it that the government envisages as being the other purposes that might be prescribed by regulation in the meaning of this section?

Hon. U. Dosanjh:

Section 3(2) is permissive. Obviously it would allow us to allow the corporation to service, for instance, the fire dispatch. If Surrey, without entering into a larger agreement, is wanting to only have the fire dispatch, it may allow us to do that. I'm not very technically oriented here, but I think it's meant for that.

Section 3(2)(

b) is, I believe, simply an anticipation of any service that may develop -- something new that we may not anticipate today that we may need to include in future. I can't think of any other service currently being provided that would need to be grouped under a corporation such as this, but there might be one in the future. This simply takes care of any eventuality.

G. Plant: The question here is: how is this thing going to be paid for? I assume that the intention is to have the members participate in, among other things, cost-sharing arrangements. Therefore collectively they will all be responsible for . . . . Or individually they will each be responsible for the share that they agree on. I wonder if there is sort of a brief

summary that the Attorney General can give me of how that is expected to work.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there has been a cost-sharing formula arrived at amongst the anticipated members of this corporation. I don't have the details. It has been ratified by those who are at least going to be participating in this.

G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could advise me whether that document and related documents around corporate structure, governance, business plans and so on would be available to members of the opposition in a briefing, if that should be asked for in the next little while.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that should be available. This is obviously a corporation pursuant to government statute, and information should be available.

G. Plant: One other issue I am going to put under this place, although it's a more general one, is an issue that has been brought to my attention by some people who are watching this and who recognize, I think, that there is great strength in having an integrated dispatch service -- one number you can call anywhere in southwestern British Columbia and get help for whatever the emergency is. But they are also at least alive to the fact that the person at the other end of that telephone is somebody who needs to have a wide range of experience in order to deal with the wide range of issues that may come before them down the line on the telephone.

So we have here a corporation that has, as its primary purpose, an obligation to provide emergency communications and related services to its members and will, in the course of that, hopefully, create a service that is accessible to all people who live in southwestern British Columbia. I ask that the Attorney General, as he and his ministry play their

part in the design of that, ensure that they are mindful of the need to properly train the front-line service providers to ensure that they can deal with fire issues, police issues, health issues -- all of those kinds of issues.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this structure is designed to have appropriately trained personnel dispatch in their area of expertise, and then some cross-training is going to be available. I understand that those plans are in place. The province has been participating in this venture right from the beginning. As services such as the RCMP, ambulance, other police forces and fire services participate, I'm sure they will make their training needs known. That would drive the need for cross-training -- if it is required any further than what's anticipated at this time. A centralized dispatch service obviously makes it easier to have that kind of cross-training available.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Plant: There are some special corporate rules enacted here. I note

section 5(2), which makes reference to

section 117 of the Company Act and then speaks about the

respon-

[ Page 6518 ]

sibilities of the directors of one of these emergency communication corporations. I have to admit that when I got

section 117(1) of the Company Act and looked at what it says, I had no idea what it was that the author of this intended by creating what looks like a bit of a corporate override.

If the minister would like, I can read 117(1) of the Company Act, because it's not that long. Under the heading of "Powers and functions of directors," this is what it says: "Subject to this act and the articles of the company, the directors must manage or supervise the management of the affairs and business of the company." So that's it. Here we have: " . . . the directors of an emergency communications corporation are responsible for supervising the general management of the business and affairs of the . . . corporation." I wonder if there's an explanation which could be put in lay terms for that subtle distinction.

[4:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is more specifically to deal with the independence of policing so that the directors do not interfere in the independence of policing. Also, of course, this corporation doesn't have a memorandum of articles; it has this statute of government.

G. Plant: I think the latter is self-evident and not all that to the point, but the former observation is interesting. I just hope that the directors don't end up sitting around the table asking themselves what the difference is between supervising the general management of the corporation, on the one hand, and managing or supervising the management of the company. At any rate, that will be their happy chore.

I have a second issue with

section 5. The last subsection creates a requirement that the corporation provide a copy of an annual financial statement and an auditor's report to the minister. Will this be a public document? It's not quite the same as an annual report.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it will be a public document.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

G. Plant: I gather that the intention is that all of the existing radio licences that the member organizations now have will be rolled into the corporation; but, of course, to some extent that depends of federal regulatory approval. The goal is to achieve that purpose, subject to the applicable federal rules. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is true. I understand that the federal government actually supports that.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

G. Plant: This is a

section about borrowing. The question is: how much of the project . . . ? For example, the current construction project of the E-Comm centre has a budget of some millions of dollars. I think it may even be $23 million. Is it expected that the corporation incorporated under this act or that is contemplated by this act will borrow substantially all of that money? What is the current plan for financing the construction project?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that, yes, currently the plan is to borrow substantially all of the money for building purposes.

G. Plant: How will that borrowing then manifest itself on the books of the province? We're not talking about an agency.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that would be reflected on the books of the province. This is a corporation which is under a statute but is still a private-public corporation -- if I can use that term.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

G. Plant: I suppose corporate model theorists might be interested in the distinction that exists between

section 8 and

section

Section 8 and the discussion we have just had emphasizes the separateness of the corporation.

Section 9 appears to make this corporation essentially a flow-through entity for the purposes of freedom of information requests. Is that a fairly accurate statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's true. The hon. member appreciates that this is despite the fact that the corporation may be raising money on its own to build for operational purposes. All of these services are public services, and that's why it's important for us to have that openness.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

G. Plant: This

section creates an immunity for certain people defined as "protected persons." Perhaps I could cover off the issue this way. Does this expand the zone of immunity beyond that which would currently exist for all those individuals who now provide the services that will be brought under this umbrella?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is consistent with the current law.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

G. Plant: At the risk of being facetious -- which I don't want to be -- I'm tempted to say that I wish the government well in sorting out successorship. This organization is bringing together all these different agencies, with some to come in sequentially. That is, there will be a core group to start with, and I assume, over time, that perhaps others will come in. Organizing the bargaining unit for this new agency will, I am sure, be a challenge for the Labour Relations Board. There must be negotiations afoot with respect to these issues. Is this something that is being worked on already?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the discussions have been ongoing. Obviously, if any labour relations issues can't be resolved, they would be referred to the LRB.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

[ Page 6519 ]

G. Plant: I have a couple of issues on

section 12. I want to at least see if it is possible to understand the distinction between what the provincial emergency program does in the way of coordinating response to emergencies and what this corporation will do. I wonder if it is fair or accurate to generalize, to this extent, that there is no attempt here to change indirectly any of the powers that exist in the provincial Emergency Program Act. Is that a fair and accurate statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: That certainly shortens the inquiry that would arise if the answer were otherwise.

Let me, in that context then, indicate that I have a minor bit of concern with the language of

section 12(1) of the act. This allows cabinet to make orders in relation to an emergency communications corporation. The power is cast in extraordinarily broad terms. It is expressed in this way: if cabinet considers it necessary in the public interest -- which is a very, very broad test -- the cabinet may then "make any order in relation to an emergency communications corporation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate." Could I ask the Attorney General what kinds of orders are imagined or envisaged by this power, and why is it necessary to grant the power in such unrestrained terms?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It may be difficult to find an example of what might be anticipated under this particular section. What's intended here is that the provincial government . . . . In the event that a particular corporation -- because we are hoping that there might be more than one corporation across the province over time -- passes a resolution or makes a decision which is not in the public interest to the extent that it might impact adversely on the emergency preparedness needs of another region, for instance . . . . The way we deal with emergencies in a particular area has an impact on other regions, as well.

As the hon. member knows, the provincial emergency program regional office is going to be headquartered in this particular corporation.

This would anticipate that kind of a possibility. I'm certain that this power would be rarely, if at all, used under any circumstances, because what we want to do is allow these corporations to function. If there is, at the end of the day, another corporation -- if there's more than one corporation -- they might have protocols with each other in the way they deal with these issues.

I can't think of any circumstances under which this power would be required at this time, but we doesn't want to await that kind of eventuality and find ourselves powerless to deal with issues that may cut across regional lines.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Plant: Under this umbrella I will awkwardly attempt to assume that there is an implementation provision. I want to ask the Attorney General a question or two about the timing, the expected implementation of this.

I have seen a memorandum of understanding, as I said earlier, that suggests that the test phase of the radio system, in Vancouver at any rate, will be operational in late 1998, that the remainder of the GVRD is expected to be operational by mid-1999, and that both of the expanded areas -- to include, I suppose, the whole southwest B.C. area -- are expected to be operational by mid-2000.

That is a pretty important part of the process. Firstly, I wonder if the Attorney General could confirm that those are his expectations of the timing for the radio system. Secondly, what is the expected up-and-running date or operational date for the centre in Vancouver -- the building?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The timings, as indicated by the hon. member, are correct. The centre would be up and running by the fall of 1998.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 16 (b), by renumbering the proposed

section 2 (2.1) of the Pension (Municipal) Act as

section 2 (2.2).]

[4:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 8: office of the Premier, $2,295,000.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Mr. Doug McArthur, who will be with me, I hope, for the duration of the estimates.

[ Page 6520 ]

B. Penner: I'll begin my remarks in my capacity as the opposition Youth critic and direct some comments toward the Premier in his stated capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth. It is a privilege for me to take

part in these estimates and to address some of the concerns of young people in British Columbia. I believe that young people are too often given a bad rap and stereotyped, picked on and blamed for many of today's problems, particularly by older people. I believe that in many ways today's youth are no different than the youth of a decade ago, 20 years ago or perhaps even a century ago. What is different, clearly, is the environment in which we all live.

It is important for us to define who it is we are speaking about when we talk about youth. For the purposes of my remarks and, I expect, throughout the estimates debates here today, youth are individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 years of age. In British Columbia, we are about the only province in the country where the youth population is increasing. The rest of Canada is seeing a significant decrease in the youth population. Since 1989 the youth population in British Columbia has increased 12.6 percent. We now have about 500,000 young people in British Columbia.

This presents us with both a challenge and an opportunity, especially compared to the rest of the country.

Whereas other provinces are seeing the greying of their populations, putting a strain on their health care programs and raising questions about the future sustainability of pension plans, we in British Columbia do not have this problem to the same extent. A young population -- provided that they are able to find meaningful employment -- will be paying taxes, which are necessary to support the social programs we have all come to rely upon.

However, without sufficient employment opportunities, this potential advantage for British Columbia will become a liability. Indeed, all is not well in British Columbia. Youth unemployment is double the rate of those over the age of 25. Youth have an unbelievably high rate of unemployment. Looking back a few years, in 1990 the unemployment rate for students was 9.6 percent. But by this time last year it had skyrocketed to over 22 percent.

The youth participation rate in the B.C. workforce has traditionally been higher than elsewhere in Canada. But since 1989, the youth participation rate has fallen 12.7 percent, more than in any other province in Canada. This demonstrates a worrisome trend. B.C.'s young people are giving up on our economy's ability to create new jobs. In 1980 there were 15,000 young people on welfare in British Columbia. By 1993 that number was 43,500 -- truly a dramatic increase.

During the last election, of course, the NDP promised to create 11,500 new jobs for last summer. But Statistics Canada reported that last summer, in fact, there were 8,000 fewer jobs -- not more jobs, but fewer jobs. Youth need more than just empty promises.

They need a more focused education. I believe we need to focus on practical job experience, expand our co-op programs -- particularly in our colleges and universities -- and complete that with skills training and private sector partnerships and apprenticeship programs.

Above all else, what our government needs is a government that encourages the private sector to create long-term, meaningful employment. They need jobs that will help pay for their student loans, rent and tuition. They need jobs to unleash their potential. Our young people don't need just more empty promises. I will have some specific questions for the Premier, but at this time I would like to give way to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who, I believe, has a specific line of inquiry.

C. Hansen: I would gladly defer to the Premier if he wants to respond initially to my colleague's comments.

During the estimates process last year, we raised the issue of the student summer employment program specifically. I raised the concern about the length or duration of jobs that would be provided -- that it's one thing to count the number of individuals who participate in these programs, but we should also be looking at how long each of these positions last for. The Premier undertook at that time to do a thorough evaluation of these types of issues. I'm wondering if he could give us some conclusions that may have been drawn from that evaluation.

Hon. G. Clark: We have an evaluation, actually, right here. We'd be happy to provide it to the member for all the programs. As I hope the members opposite know, my Youth Office is given constant briefings. There are quite a few briefings and interactions with members opposite about the progress or lack of progress, as the case may be, with respect to the various programs under the Guarantee for Youth initiative of our government.

With respect to summer employment programs, last year, as you know, we created 2,891 jobs, which exceeded the target. This year the target was 3,300, and we've created 3,346 jobs, again exceeding the target. The Summer Works program is a very cost-effective initiative. It's a subsidy program for employers and is working extremely well.

The member last year, as I recall, had some discussion about (

a) the quality of the work and (

b) the duration. I'm quite pleased, especially with the youth forum I had -- the second Premier's Youth Forum -- that young people said that we shouldn't be as obsessed with how long the jobs are, because the nature of the job market today is such that there's a series of jobs created and that getting any experience, even short-term experience, is a valuable thing.

We've defined the Student Summer Works program as 150 hours minimum in terms of job length as a summer job, because many of them are part-time initiatives, and $9 an hour is the average wage. Last year we had a 50 percent subsidy up to a certain amount, and this year we kept the subsidy level the same but gave instructions -- in terms of the demand, which is larger than the amount of money -- to give priority to those employers who take less than the maximum subsidy allowed. That's one of the reasons we've been able to exceed the target without any incremental funding.

We're constantly monitoring the situation. We try to ensure that with Student Summer Works, youth receive work experience directly related to their field of study or interest, and about 50 percent of the students were placed in jobs relating to science and technology. The types of jobs varied, including a special needs youth coordinator, a junior architectural assistant, an aircraft maintenance assistant, a tourism coordinator -- and I could go on.

We try to target the jobs to the area of interest of the student, and we try to ensure that it is a minimum length of time and a wage that is higher than minimum wage. In this case, it's about $9 an hour. About half the jobs that have been created are in the science and tech fields, and again, it's reasonably successful. That's not totally surprising, given that there's a significant level of government subsidy.

Overall, the Guarantee for Youth program is the most ambitious job creation initiative for young people in Canada,

[ Page 6521 ]

and it continues to be. This year, as you know, we've expanded it to $23 million, I think, and we've expanded the number of job targets to 12,000. We're quite optimistic that we will be there, because we're on track to meet the targets.

[4:30]

C. Hansen: When we had this discussion last year, I think we weren't talking specifically about the Student Summer Works '96 program but about the overall student summer job programs. I believe there were eight altogether. The targets last year, I believe, were something like 13,000 jobs, of which approximately 11,500 materialized out of those programs.

I want to come back to this because it was in that context that we talked about evaluation. The Premier assured me last year that there would be an evaluation done of the overall summer jobs program, not just of Summer Works. This may not be a case in which we can talk about job-years of employment, but could we talk about job-weeks? How many weeks of employment do we have when we look at those 11,500 young British Columbians who were able to benefit from the programs last summer?

Hon. G. Clark: The reason I was confused is because the member referred to summer jobs. The Guarantee for Youth is not a summer job program for young people; it's a program to create jobs for young people. The only real component of it that's a summer job program is the Student Summer Works program, so that's perhaps why my confusion.

With respect to the overall Guarantee for Youth and the initiatives, I have the evaluation. I have it right here before me, and I'd be happy to send it to the member. To answer specific questions, the environmental youth teams have a 13-week average length of time. Student Summer Works is 150 hours, and First Job in Science is a 40.9-week average.

The You-BET initiative -- the youth business entrepreneurship training program -- is not a job program, strictly speaking, but positions, and there are three stages of training over one year. Over 60 young people created new businesses out of that or partly as a result of that, and then, of course, the Crown youth employment initiatives vary between some permanent part-time jobs.

So we have the evaluation of last year, and as I said last year, we were quite pleased with it. We are always refining the initiative but are quite pleased with it, with the exception of Opportunities '96, which was not successful, relatively speaking at least. It didn't meet the targets. This year we've abolished that and created something called Job Start, which is a different initiative trying to work with the business community. We also have another rather smaller program called Youth and the Internet, which we've announced as a pilot project.

C. Hansen: In the discussion we had last year, which was on August 14, the Premier went to great lengths to describe to us the evaluation process that would be done. He said:

"I think a full evaluation of all of the programs -- the number of days worked, the number of jobs created, the number of potential jobs created, the quality of those jobs, the pay, because they also vary in pay, the level of the subsidy, whether that can be changed, all that -- will be part of the review, with a view to improving program delivery next year."

Then after a couple of other questions, he went on to assure that this evaluation would be completed by the end of the fiscal year. He promised that I would be able to have a copy of that evaluation by the end of the fiscal year, which would have made it last March 31. The apologies he gave at the time were that he couldn't make it available in advance of the 1997 program being created, but he assured me that I would have that evaluation.

Could the minister tell us, after all those grandiose promises last August 14, why it was that this evaluation program didn't even start until April of this year?

Hon. G. Clark: They weren't grandiose promises; they were commitments I made, which we are attempting to keep. I'll read you what I said, because I have Hansard right here before me. It says: "The reviews are usually conducted -- and this will be no different -- near the end of the fiscal year in order to guide deliberations with respect to budget-making . . . . " The end of the fiscal year was March 31, and so we did do an evaluation, and it was produced just fairly recently.

It's an iterative process, of course, and as a result of the evaluation work that was done, we dropped Opportunities '96, we started You-BET, and we reduced the subsidy for First Job in Science from 100 percent to 75 percent. We decided to maintain the subsidy in the Student Summer Works program but to give preference to employers who did not maximize the subsidy.

So we've done an evaluation, and I have Hansard here with my commitments. The evaluation is here, and I'll be happy to send it to the member for his advice and consideration. We're making progress, and all the evidence suggests that the programs are working extremely well -- better than anywhere in the country. And all the programs suggest that there are areas that we could, no doubt, improve upon.

C. Hansen: The Premier was quoting from Hansard , but unfortunately he should have quoted the very next sentence. The very next sentence in Hansard reads: "Therefore the evaluation will start almost immediately upon the conclusion of those programs or the end of the summer, if you will."

I guess part of it is that I raised this not to berate the Premier, but I certainly recall the estimates process last year, and the commitments the Premier made were done with a great spirit of cooperation in the assurances he gave. My concern is that the assurances that he's going to give us this year may not be followed up on, and I would like the Premier to make an undertaking that the commitments he makes in this House during the estimates process will be followed up on and will not wait until we in turn make phone calls to his office to ask where an evaluation process is that should have started months and months prior to when it actually got underway.

I would also like to raise the issue of the student jobs program that was announced this year. It was announced on April 11. We were the last province in Canada to come forward to announce 1997 student summer job programs, and certainly as far as university students are concerned, they're basically out of classes at that point and are trying to finish up final exams. To get to the point of announcing programs in the middle of April is far too late to really be of maximum benefit to students as they're coming out of universities.

I'm wondering if the Premier could undertake to assure us that the 1998 programs will be announced in a more timely fashion so that students can properly take advantage of them.

Hon. G. Clark: That's good, constructive advice, and I'll certainly take it under advisement. I have to say that we have not had any real criticism. The number of jobs were filled -- oversubscribed immediately -- so there's lots of employers

[ Page 6522 ]

looking for the subsidy and lots of students willing to take it. So by that definition, it's not that it hasn't been successful. I think the member has made a valid point, that if we could announce it slightly earlier, that would be helpful.

I want to reiterate that evaluation took place exactly as I indicated last year. These are ongoing and iterative processes of evaluation. The members opposite have a certain obligation, it seems to me, to avail themselves of my staff. I've made them available to all of you. I know that many of you have met with my staff from time to time.

While I make the commitment and we do the evaluation, the information is available. It could be made available in a more timely fashion, I will grant the members opposite, but with freedom-of-information legislation as well as full staff cooperation -- I'm sure all members would agree that they've had that from my staff in the Youth Office -- members know that there's clearly no attempt to circumvent any commitments I made.

I certainly give you my undertaking to do the best I can again next year.

C. Hansen: Before I turn this back to my colleague from Chilliwack, I'll just point out one commitment the Premier made to me last year, and that's that he would get this evaluation material to me. He didn't. What he said was: " . . . it's a little problematic in terms of the timing of the evaluation and the budget for next year and when I can get you the material. I'm not trying to be evasive, but it will more likely be near the end of the fiscal year."

I thought he was talking about the last fiscal year, not the current one that we're in. But certainly I will accept the Premier's undertaking to get that evaluation to us as soon as possible.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.

B. Penner: I can't resist mentioning that I too asked for an evaluative framework from the Premier in terms of the overall goals and objectives of the Guarantee for Youth program -- primarily the job creation aspect of that program. In response -- and I'm also quoting from Hansard -- the Premier said: "I expect to have an evaluative framework that I can share with members, and I can have excellent briefings again with members on all the evaluations of the programs that we have embarked upon." Of course, we on this side are still waiting for those programs and evaluations.

I'll ask a question of the Premier: has there been an explicit framework or guideline established for evaluating all of the programs, primarily the job creation programs under the Guarantee for Youth program? If so, has that been compiled in a document form that can be shared with all members?

Hon. G. Clark: I can't resist saying that this seems a slightly petty line of questioning. We evaluated the Guarantee for Youth program at the Premier's Youth Forum. We made a progress report and presented it to the Youth Forum. Each ministry that has a component evaluates it, and it's evaluated very rigorously by Treasury Board in the process.

We made significant changes as a result of that evaluation. We dropped Opportunities '96; it was eliminated. We created new programs: Job Start, Youth and the Internet. More money is provided -- from $20 million to $23 million. Higher targets are provided this year -- 12,000 as opposed to 11,000 last year. We've reviewed participants, employers; we did a survey of all of them. We got excellent reports. We had a variety of reports -- anecdotal evidence at the Youth Forum. We have a formal evaluation, which I grant the member should have been provided before now. But we've done a formal evaluation of the programs and made the changes accordingly.

While I hear the member's concern about not following up in detail on Hansard questions last year . . . . Well, my office is available any time to the members opposite on these questions. In fact, the members know that my staff in the Youth Office will give them a briefing at any time on any of the factors herein.

I appreciate that you could come and ask me these questions, and I don't quarrel with that. All I'm saying is: surely there are more substantive issues to canvass, rather than the fact that you waited until estimates before you asked me for some of these detailed questions -- because I can provide it all for you.

B. Penner: The hon. Chair will note from the debate so far that in fact these questions were asked of the Premier almost a year ago -- 11 months ago -- and we're still waiting.

In terms of the evaluation that has been performed, I wonder if the Premier can indicate if an analysis has been undertaken as to the return on investment, as it were, from the taxpayers' point of view, for every dollar contributed to these various problems. Which particular program produces more jobs per dollar invested by the taxpayer? Has there been an analysis undertaken from that perspective? If there is such an analysis, I believe that could perhaps guide us in the future so that we get a bigger bang for our buck when we're looking at these wage subsidy programs and how to cooperate with business.

Hon. G. Clark: There is, but it's very hard to make cross-comparisons between the programs, because they're designed for different purposes. For example, if you are hiring youth who are difficult to hire or need more skills and are not in school, then you may need a higher level of subsidy. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, because you're trying to achieve a certain objective. If you're a student, you may need a lower level of subsidy and may be successful. On average it's $2,000 per job, which is very good, although the jobs aren't year-round jobs in every case.

The best bang for the buck is pretty straightforward, and that's the youth business entrepreneurship training program, even though it doesn't create any jobs per se because it isn't a placement program or subsidy program. It's a fairly modest amount of expenditure in terms of the training for young people who want to get into their own business. But I think it's fair to say that we have evidence of 60 businesses being created directly or indirectly as a result of people participating in these seminars.

It doesn't automatically flow from that that a doubling of the program will double the number of jobs, although clearly it's a program we'd like to expand and we have expanded this year as a result of that evaluation.

Further, we've got a corporate mentoring program dovetailed with the youth business entrepreneurship training program. Finally, the banks have actually come up with an interesting program to provide some loans and seed capital for young people getting into business, and we have partnered up a little bit with the banks.

I have an excellent staff at the Youth Office. Renée Saklikar, who heads that up, attended the national conference on youth employment back east. Renée worked hard to make

[ Page 6523 ]

sure that our programs can fit nicely with some of the initiatives of the banks and other people from the corporate community who feel they have a corporate responsibility in this area to ensure that it flows nicely from youth business entrepreneurship training and more detail around that, to mentoring with people in the business community who can mentor young people and give them assistance by providing access to capital through their banks.

So I think that is the program that has the biggest bang for the buck, but it meets a particular target audience and doesn't deal with some of the harder-to-employ young people who might need a higher level of subsidy, and that's an argument for continuing those programs.

[4:45]

B. Penner: I thank the Premier for those remarks. A number of times the Premier indirectly touched on a program which existed last year called Opportunities '96. We know, and we all agree, that there were some problems with that program. It's not back again this year, at least not in its original form.

Just by way of review, Opportunities '96 promised to create 3,500 jobs at a cost to the taxpayers of $1.2 million. My understanding is that this was supposed to happen through encouraging the private sector to hire people, without a direct government subsidy to do so. At the end of the day, I was told that in fact only 264 jobs were created by Opportunities '96. So it clearly fell short of the target.

At the time, and during last year's estimates, the Premier indicated that part of the shortfall was due to the shortness of time in terms of negotiating or discussing matters with the private sector -- with the individual businesses involved. This is what he said in Hansard :

"We have to keep working at it. We're not going to give up on the non-subsidized corporate community in challenging them to do their part for youth unemployment. The lesson is that we've got to work closer with them to try to make sure that this is a success. We're continuing to work away, with, I think, some positive news to report in the near future."

This year there is no such thing as Opportunities '97. I just wonder if the Premier can elaborate on what happened, because I took his comments last year to mean that yes, there was a disappointment in Opportunities '96, but we're going to work harder, dig in and try to make Opportunities '97 a success. It doesn't seem to have resurfaced this year. I look forward to the Premier's comments.

Hon. G. Clark: In discussions with the business community, it was decided to actually cancel Opportunities '97, because not only did Opportunities '96 not work but we needed to work more with the private sector to be successful. So we did two things which I am quite excited about. First of all, we started a new program called Job Start, which essentially is a training subsidy program for non-students. We ended up making it a subsidy program to try to get young people into jobs. I guess it's modelled a little bit after the Student Summer Works program, only it's for non-students.

This one, I think, can be successful. It has only just begun, and about 10 percent of the number of jobs we targeted have been created so far. But we think that can work.

Secondly, and far more importantly -- and I hope the members will agree with this -- I formed a Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment, chaired by Paul Lee. Paul Lee is an outstanding relatively young British Columbian who was chief executive officer of Electronic Arts, I believe. He is currently the general manager of Electronic Arts and a very successful business person in his own right. He's quite prominent and involved in many other companies in British Columbia. He very generously agreed to chair the Premier's Advisory Council on Youth Employment.

He put together -- much more than I could have done -- an excellent committee of business people to give advice to the government. That committee consists of people like Bob Fairweather, the chair of the board of trade; Martin Glynn from the Hong Kong Bank; Roslyn Kunin, a well-known economist; and there's a variety of other people on this advisory committee. It's a really top-notch, blue-chip committee. All of the members are volunteering their time. Darcy Rezac acts on it from the board of trade, as well, I believe. I think Jerry Lampert is on it from the Business Council.

There's a broad representation on this committee, chaired by Paul Lee. They have been working extremely hard. Every month they've been meeting, benchmarking and looking at ways that the government can assist in job creation.

We haven't got a program flowing out of that group yet. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, because we've been working with them. The Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment is also on that committee. He's working hard, trying to find ways that we could drive a non-subsidized government initiative to create jobs for young people. Obviously, like any committee, it has its differences.

Like anything, the recommendations they make may or may not be accepted by government. It is too early to say, but I have a great deal of faith in Paul Lee and many of the business people who are participating. I look forward to their recommendations and to implementing some recommendations. So by the time we meet next year, there will be some good private sector initiatives working with government for youth unemployment. In the meantime, we scrapped the one we did have and replaced it with Job Start, which we think can be modestly successful while we're working for perhaps bigger structural changes that we could make to try to promote youth employment.

B. Penner: I think the Premier has been reading my mind. He keeps getting to my next question before I ask it. I was about to ask about the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment. As the Premier knows, he made the announcement regarding the formation of that committee on March 13 of this year. The Premier is quite correct that as a committee it certainly does possess a number of very talented individuals, including Jerry Lampert, who is the president of the B.C. Business Council, and a host of others, including representatives from the trade union community.

I was going to ask the Premier about what was happening with that. I think he substantially answered the question about what kind of progress . . . or at least he said that the committee was meeting on a monthly basis. I wonder if the Premier is able to inform us at this time when we could expect some form of a strategy being put forward by this committee. Is there a deadline or a specific date the Premier is aware of when this blue-chip committee will report back with a strategy to address youth unemployment?

Hon. G. Clark: There is no deadline for the report, because I've been really deferring to the committee and the volunteers involved. They've been meeting hard. I can tell you that not just Paul Lee but all of the business people there have no desire to meet every month for years on end. They are very busy people, very successful people, and they want to make

[ Page 6524 ]

sure that what they recommend has some prospects for success. Off the top of my head, I can't give you a time frame, except that I think it will certainly not be years but maybe a few months away before we get some concrete, really specific suggestions coming out of this committee.

B. Penner: So for the sake of clarification, then, and to summarize, because Opportunities '96 was not returned this year in the form of Opportunities '97, there is only the Job Start program, which is a wage subsidy program. I believe it's correct to state that there are no non-subsidized job creation efforts, aside from the mentorship program and the You-Bet program, encouraging the private sector to take up the slack and hire some young people. I think that's unfortunate.

I had the opportunity earlier this year to read a very interesting report prepared or at least paid for by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, working in association with a group advocating on behalf of young people based out of Ottawa. They took a different approach to the whole issue of youth unemployment.

Instead of looking at the responsibility of government to create jobs for young people, they took a different approach and said: "What is it that the private sector can do to specifically hire greater numbers of young people, given our ever-increasing levels of youth unemployment?" They surveyed private sector employers across Canada and looked at various ways they go about hiring young people and for what types of jobs -- whether it's internships, co-op programs in cooperation with universities or apprenticeship programs.

What the report recommended is that there be some way of pulling together this information from all of these diverse and individual corporations and businesses to coordinate their strategy. Many corporations are in the position of reinventing the wheel and could learn from the expertise of others.

I offer this by way of a suggestion. Perhaps the provincial government could be a catalyst in terms of pulling together the information from the private sector entities in our province. They could find out how they go about hiring young people and for what specific types of jobs, and disseminate that information, so that the different businesses can learn from each other and, perhaps more importantly, so that young people can find out what these corporations are doing and whether they're looking at six-month internship programs or prefer university-sponsored co-op programs to hiring youth.

That might be one way to replace Opportunities '96, which clearly didn't work out the way we had hoped. I would encourage the Premier and the government to perhaps consider that approach.

I think what we get to many times in this whole debate around youth unemployment and ways to solve it is information-sharing -- for better or for worse, it comes down to that. In today's world, information truly is power, and we need to give power to our young people by giving them access to the information.

I'll just canvass a number of the other programs that are contained in A Guarantee for Youth. The Premier did already refer to the Job Start program. I was going to ask some more questions about it. I understand from his comments, though, that it is specifically designed for non-students, and I take it from the Premier's response that that's correct. The goal this year is to create 2,000 jobs at a cost of $2.4 million to the taxpayer. Now, this is where I need some clarification.

I understand that the way the program works is that to qualify, a private sector employer has to offer at least four months worth of employment, but they will receive at most a two-month wage subsidy, I believe. I'm wondering if the Premier can elaborate on how that wage subsidy works, what the maximum amount is per hour, and explain the criteria around the length of the program.

Hon. G. Clark: The purpose of it is pretty straightforward. It's to be a training subsidy rather than a simple wage subsidy. The Student Summer Works program is essentially a wage subsidy program. This is designed to try to assist . . . . Let me back up for a minute philosophically. What companies say to the government is: "Well, we'd like to hire young people, but they don't have the skills. Or we're a small business, so we can't afford to train them; and if we train them, they leave." All of those I think have some validity, depending on the company.

So we designed a program that gives a training subsidy for a couple of months on the condition that they keep them on for a couple of months. They can't just hire somebody, get the training subsidy, use it essentially as a wage subsidy, then get rid of them, hire some other people and get the subsidy again. The idea is that they would make a commitment.

We would help with, if you will, the transition period while the young person gets trained -- give a subsidy to the company to train. I'm just trying to find the exact amount of the subsidy; I don't have it. I'm sure it's here in my binder, but I haven't got it off the top of my head. The notion would be that, again, it would be a payment based on the first two months of the wages of the individual, to subsidize that as a way of giving the company the ability to train.

Remember, what companies say quite regularly is: "Even at minimum wage, we can't afford to train somebody at a job for that early entry period. We're too small." So this is a way of giving them a break at the beginning.

The subsidy is eight weeks. The maximum subsidy is $3.50 per hour. As I say, it's a new program, First Job for Youth. It's designed not to be a straight wage subsidy, like the Student Summer Works program or some of the other ones, but to trigger an entry-level training period and give some government subsidy to assist employers to hire young people.

B. Penner: I thank the Premier for that answer. Part of the reason I ask the question is that, over the last number of months, I have from time to time received phone calls from individuals who are concerned that perhaps employers are taking advantage of certain subsidies offered by the provincial government. Then, at the very end of the subsidy, they shuffle that employee out -- in this case, a restaurant is the spe