1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 3,

Part 1

[ Page 805 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would like the House to welcome a friend of mine -- a classmate of mine from SFU days, ages ago -- and his partner. Doug Welbanks and Angela Zheng are in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I'm pleased that we have with us today in the gallery Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate for the Legislature; and with her, Ian Mass, the deputy child, youth and family advocate. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, with us today is a former resident of British Columbia, now from Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, who is probably the best motorcycle mechanic in Canada: Orest Dietl.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, this is the second occasion I've risen on a sad note. I want to acknowledge the passing of someone who I think has contributed immensely to public life: Bob McMath, who for 40 years contributed to public life as a school trustee and councillor in Richmond. Bob was pretty active in terms of protecting farmland. He had a good union background. I wonder, hon. Speaker, if it is appropriate that you would convey on behalf of the House our expressions of condolence.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister; I will certainly undertake to do that.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce two of my constituents: Bill and Margo Weisman from the South Surrey-White Rock area. They're here with their daughter Margaret, from Mayne Island. Would the House make them welcome.

J. Doyle: Today in the gallery -- I am very pleased -- are two constituents all the way from Golden: Ian and Roxanne Bennett. Roxanne is taking some courses at the University of Victoria. They are joined by their two young sons, two fine young boys, Nathaniel and Telsin. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, Kristina Vandervoort is in the gallery. She is a friend, a strong advocate for women's equality and chair of the women's rights committee of the NDP. Would the House please make her welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting us today from Smithers is my aunt, Charlotte Kelly. Visiting us today from Vancouver is Linnea Hanson, daughter of the federal member for Skeena in the thirties and forties, Olaf Hanson. With them, from Nanaimo, is Bob Cimolini and his family: his niece Anna and his children, Carman, Paul and Victoria. I ask the House to make them welcome, please.

C. Clark: In the gallery today we have a longtime community activist from Burnaby, the woman who started the first non-profit day care in the city of Burnaby and who is also my mother: Mavis Clark. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR KNOWN TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, Justice Gove was commissioned to do a report in response to the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. Matthew was not a child in the care of the ministry; he was a child known to the Ministry of Social Services. He was a child at risk, but not in care. We now know this week that 14 children have died in the care of the ministry since Justice Gove's report was tabled, and they have not been investigated. Can the Minister of Social Services tell the House how many deaths of children known to the ministry have taken place and been reported to the ministry in the last year?

Hon. D. Streifel: Many of the issues around, as the opposition would like to describe... these 14 deaths have been discussed at length in estimates. We're dealing with several different causes here. Seven children died of natural causes; we have sudden infant death syndrome; we have....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. members, I'm trying to give you the information. The deaths of children is a very, very serious issue. There were three automobile accident deaths in....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Since Gove reported, we're dealing with these 14 deaths, and every one of these deaths has been referred to the coroner for investigation. Active investigation is going on in nine of the 14 deaths; in five of them, there have been no apparent extraordinary circumstances, and the file is in process; one of these deaths is before the courts; and one of these deaths is still involved with the coroner -- an apparent suicide. That's the process that's being followed. The Leader of the Opposition said that there were no investigations. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I can only assume that the minister didn't understand the question. There are children that are in care of the ministry. There are also children at risk who are known to the ministry but who are not in the care of the ministry. My question to the minister is simply this: can the minister tell me how many deaths of children at risk -- children known to the ministry -- have been reported to the ministry in the last year?

Hon. D. Streifel: Since I've been minister, I've had these 14 deaths reported to me, as we discussed in estimates. The rest of the information I will get for the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: The deaths of children in care and of children known to the ministry, who look to the ministry for protection, is something that I would think the minister would put at the top of his agenda to understand. Inquiries we have made have led us to believe that as many as 50 deaths of children have been reported to the ministry, and they were children who had been known to the ministry. My question to the minister is: do you know if any of these children's deaths have been referred to the Child and Family Review Board?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, in fact, no. The referral to the Child and Family Review Board would be out of the mandate

[ Page 806 ]

of the review board. The review board has been constituted under

section 83 to ensure that the quantity and the quality of the rights of children under that act are enforced. The only way a death would go to that review board is if the minister would refer that death to the review board. Hon. members....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, hon. Speaker, the cackling from the opposition on this very serious issue is very disturbing.

[2:15]

To the Leader of the Opposition, Gove's requirement was that a process be established that is both external and independent. If the minister were to refer an investigation of a death to this board -- and the chair of the board reports to the minister -- would this fit the Leader of the Opposition's definition of independent in this case? Your critic, hon. Leader of the Opposition, agrees that we are setting up the process. We expect a report in by Brent Parfitt, the deputy ombudsman, who is working on an independent and external process that fits the recommendation of Gove. I expect this process to be completed by the end of summer, and we will have that in our hands.

CHILD AND FAMILY

REVIEW BOARD

G. Plant: I want to pick up on the theme of the last answer given by the Minister of Social Services, because this morning that minister finally admitted that none of the deaths of the 14 children in his ministry's care, which have occurred since November 1995, has been referred to the Child and Family Review Board. As I understand it, the minister thinks this is a good thing because the board isn't really external or independent but, rather, answers to him. My question is this. Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

G. Plant: That is exactly what the minister just said, and this is the problem. That is not what his predecessor said. His predecessor said the board would provide external reviews. My question is: which is it, external or internal?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's unfortunate that the member from Richmond is in fact wrong again on the answers I gave, and wrong again on the issue. The referral of deaths to the review board is beyond the mandate of the board unless -- get this, hon. members -- the minister refers them. That would not fit....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, hon. members, it's very, very unfortunate. There is a process involved....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, unless we have order here, we are going to run out of time for question period. Could we please have relative quiet so we can hear both answers and questions.

Hon. D. Streifel: It would suffice to suggest to the member that he's wrong. He did not listen to my answer. He purposely plays politics with these tragedies. It's unfortunate that that's what they choose to do. In fact, in discussion with the ombudsman, the ombudsman agrees with this minister that it's better to exercise some caution in this matter and set up a process that is independent and external, as Judge Gove recommended.

G. Plant: This is a serious situation: lives are at risk. This is not a time for the government to be mixing its message. I want to read from a press release issued by the Ministry of Social Services on January 29 of this year:

"The new act also makes the Social Services ministry more accountable to both clients and the public through the establishment of the Child and Family Review Board.... The board provides external reviews of specific cases to ensure youth in care and others are treated fairly under the new legislation."

Again to the Social Services minister: which minister is telling the truth -- the current minister or his predecessor?

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to try this one more time for the member opposite. It is external to the bureaucracy. The chair of the board reports to the minister. The mandate of the board under

section 83 -- and I asked the hon. members opposite to do their homework the other night and read this piece of legislation -- is to review complaints of any breaches of the rights of children under the act, to review any other matters referred by the minister and to review other matters that may be specified by regulation. That's what the mandate under

section 83 of this act is.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON CHILD DEATHS

M. Coell: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. I'm disappointed with the answers I hear, because the ministry and the minister seem to be more concerned about bureaucracy than about looking after the safety of children.

On Monday, the Minister of Social Services told me that a review of the 19 deaths from the Gove commission would be ready in three weeks or so. Today we find that that report is sitting on Chris Haynes's desk in his ministry. Will the minister immediately instruct Mr. Haynes to release that report on those 19 deaths right now, today?

Hon. D. Streifel: When we canvassed these areas in estimates, we had one member or the other agreeing that the process was correct. We had the member for Vancouver-Langara suggesting that he would bring the Liberal caucus on board and would accept and respect the independence that's required here.

The answer to the question was given to the members opposite many times during the process of.... Every piece of information....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm afraid the members opposite really aren't interested in the answers, hon. Speaker, but I will persevere. The answer, hon. members, repeated probably ten or

[ Page 807 ]

12 times now for your clarification, is that every bit of information that I can legally release out of that report will be done. There are privacy considerations and confidentiality considerations contained in the different acts. The members seem to want to disrespect the rights of all British Columbians on this issue. They want to abrogate rights of privacy and confidentiality, and that's not good enough.

VICTORIA LINE FUNDING

D. Symons: My question is in regard to the Royal Victorian . In 1993, the NDP rejected proposals from private industry to provide a Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Instead, the NDP and this Premier insisted they could run a service by making a profit by 1997. Now, the Royal Victorian is clearly a flop. Can the minister responsible tell us how much taxpayers' money for capital and operating expenses was wasted on yet another of the Premier's irresponsible gambles?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I am shocked and dismayed. It must indeed come as a blow to the big business community in Victoria that the opposition does not now -- and, in fact, I don't believe ever did -- support this government's initiative to reintroduce that cruise line service that's bringing into the Victoria region $10 million to $11 million worth of business, foreign currency and clean jobs. This gang over here -- members from Victoria -- doesn't support this service. It is shocking!

As I indicated to the media, this service has become so attractive that the expressions of interest from the private sector are growing daily. Having nurtured this service that brings so much benefit to the Victoria region, if indeed the private sector now wants to come in, I am quite open to those kinds of suggestions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, after a performance like that, it's hard to be serious. But this is a serious matter, because a good number of taxpayers' dollars have gone into this government's irresponsible attempt to put up that ferry service.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please, hon. members, let's hear the question. Sorry, hon. member. Please continue.

D. Symons: The Premier, who was the minister responsible then, said he expected the company to be in the black by 1997, or even before. As recently as last September, he said that the Royal Victorian actually performed better than expected. If that's the case, we really have to ask what on earth the minister currently responsible meant by that great presentation he made a few minutes ago. So my question to the minister is: what happened? What was the unexpected tragedy that occurred between last September and now, so that the Royal Victorian is now felt to be, I guess, a drag upon the government and you're going to end up selling it off?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I note that the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head were peculiarly silent on this issue. They're sitting with some discomfort. They obviously lost the fight in caucus on this one, and they should have some discomfort.

The fact is that ridership is up, and even more visitors are now coming to Victoria. The fact is that Frank Rhodes, the president and CEO of B.C. Ferries, met with Tourism Victoria. I have a meeting at 3 o'clock with the mayor of Victoria and the tourism association, and they have all expressed an intent to work in cooperation. They have said that they appreciate that the government took this initiative to bring this significant benefit to this region. I would suggest that the MLAs from Vancouver in the Liberal caucus are not doing a service to the MLAs from the Victoria region in the Liberal caucus, and perhaps they might want to sort this out before they go too much farther.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

G. Abbott: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 574 residents in the Shuswap, Kamloops and Kamloops-North Thompson ridings concerned with flooding and erosion problems. The petition reads:

"To the honourable Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of British Columbia states that the flooding and erosion of Chase Creek continues to cause monetary hardship, loss of agricultural land, danger to homes and businesses, and aggravates the water quality problems of the city of Kamloops.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House take action to instruct Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests and Forest Renewal B.C. to fulfil their mandate of restoring and protecting the watershed from further damage and degradation resulting from past and present forestry activities."

It's dated June 6, 1996.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: For the edification of the House, I am pleased to submit the 1995 annual report of the job protection commissioner and the 1995 report of the B.C. Rail Group.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the honour to present the 1995 annual report of the Forest Land Commission of British Columbia, of the Forest Practices Board of B.C.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply A. For the information of the House, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 11.

BC BENEFITS (YOUTH WORKS) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

G. Wilson: In terms of the first section, we're essentially dealing with

definitions. Now, "employability program"

[ Page 808 ]

means a program to facilitate entry into the workforce, and "includes, but is not limited to.... " Several questions come up around whether or not these programs are ones already in place through some form of institution or through some kind of facility. Or will it be something that the individuals themselves can undertake on behalf of themselves? I note that

section 1(e), for example, talks about self-employment readiness. Does that mean that this is something that an individual might be able to undertake on their own behalf if they're proposing to go into, for example, the restaurant business, and may decide they're going to spend some time reviewing and understanding business plans of restaurants -- how they work, how suppliers work and so on? So the question is: does it have to be a registered program that is approved by this minister? Or does it include training that may be self-directed and self-motivated?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. Let me say that.... Yesterday, during the course of second reading debate, the issues of flexibility and individuality were raised, I believe, by the member from Langara and the member for Delta North, and perhaps even by yourself in that not so eloquent speech -- sorry, eloquent speech -- that you gave. It's all in the point of view.

If an individual comes to us and says, "I would prefer to do program A as opposed to the program that you're recommending, which is program B," we'll take a look at that. We're obviously trying to have an element of flexibility in the operation of this. So that would be considered, yes.

G. Wilson: The problem is that the minister is saying program A or program B. If there is an individual who has, for example, completed a skills training program, finds himself out of work, has completed this program that may be directing him toward the.... Let me use the restaurant example, because I know of one such case in Powell River, a case that I know some detail about.

That individual then undertakes to spend six months putting together a preparation and business plan, and putting together a package that will allow the opportunity for this individual to take over the management in the initial stages and eventually, hopefully, the ownership of this restaurant. For that period of time, this individual was not involved in any training program per se, although that person was pursuing a self-education process about how this operation should work.

My reading of "employability program" is that it has to be something registered with some institution, and that this can't be something that is self-directed and self-motivated unless it's tied to a particular institution. I need to get clarification on that point.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it can be somewhat self-directed.

G. Wilson: The next question would be: who determines the value or worth of that self-directed learning? Is that determined by the minister, or is there going to be a set of guidelines set out that somebody can read so that they have some understanding of eligibility before they start?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday the member for Vancouver-Langara wrongly, but in any event.... He brought in a whole set of regulations in binders and books and said: "Boy, this is the problem you've got; you've got too many of these things and not enough flexibility in the system." And now you are asking me if we are going to add to those binders. I guess the answer is yes, we are to some degree, obviously. But generally, no. We will make that determination. The ministry, through the people I delegate under the regulations, will have the ability to do that. Okay?

G. Wilson: No, it's not okay. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara was absolutely correct when he suggested there are a whole host of regulations which are not spelled out in this act that give enormous discretionary power to the minister. These are regulations that we are not going to see the text or detail of, even though we understand what they'll generally apply to. This Legislative Assembly will have no opportunity to debate that.

In response to my question, the minister says yes, the minister will determine whether or not this is a worthwhile program. How do we institute fairness into a program if there is such a highly subjective set of criteria for one individual who is doing something the minister might deem, for whatever reasons, as worthwhile, and another for an individual who the minister may quite arbitrarily decide isn't?

Hon. M. Sihota: To be honest with you, hon. member, I believe there has to be an element of subjectivity to these matters. If we are going to allow individuals to fulfil their potentials as human beings, then I don't think we can have a system that is overly rigid. There has to be an element of fluidity within the system. So there will be an element of subjectivity; to be candid about it, I think it is already in the system as we now know it.

As to your first point on regulations, it has always been the case that regulations aren't debated here. There has always been opportunity for you and other hon. members to make comment on those regulations, but for as long as parliaments have had regulatory power, those have been made by cabinet. I think one could argue that that system has served us well.

G. Wilson: Whether or not regulations should or shouldn't be subject to greater scrutiny in debate is a matter for a different debate. I don't want to get into it now, except to say that where

an act such as this one subjects the text of the act to regulations that are yet to be determined, clearly if we as an opposition are trying to scrutinize whether or not this is good or bad legislation, it puts us somewhat at a disadvantage, because we don't know what the minister may or may not have in mind for the long term.

I guess the next question I want to talk about is the definition of youth. Why the age of 19, and why the cutoff at the age of 25? What was the rationale for determining ages 19 to 25 as the criterion, given that many people who would presumably be eligible for income support at the ages of 17 or 18, or even 26 or 28, may have similar or exactly the same conditions?

Hon. M. Sihota: As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena noted yesterday in debate, this element of our population has a higher rate of unemployment than other elements of the population that fall outside of the 19-to-24 age group. His numbers were higher than what is fact, but nonetheless, the point was correct. The area of young people requires attention, so in defining that we did it, in part, on unemployment rates.

G. Wilson: I have just a couple more questions and I'll yield to other members.

What was also brought forward in the debate, certainly in the text of my comment, was the fact that most of these people

[ Page 809 ]

who are between the ages of 19 and 25 are, on average, on income assistance for a short period of time. I believe that six months is the average which is documented in the material from the government. So this is a fairly stringent set of regulations which is giving tremendous subjective powers to the minister. That's going to affect the lives of these people, and that's of concern.

But youth aged 19 to 25 includes all youth between the ages of 19 and 25. There is nothing that talks of marital status here. One presumes that a single mother between the ages of 19 and 25 with children will be subjected to precisely the same regulations as a single male with no dependents. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: I thought you were going to ask me something else. I was anticipating a different question. If you could just ask that question again....

G. Wilson: The definition here of youth is a person 19 years of age to 25 years of age. There is nothing in this act that specifies gender or marital status. I'm assuming, then, that a single mother between the ages of 19 and 25 with dependent children is going to be treated exactly the same under this legislation as a single male without dependents. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: That matter is dealt with by a subsequent

section in the act. Of course, with all the respect I have for the rules here, I wouldn't want to comment on another section. Suffice it to say, if I can put it this way, that if you're 19 to 24, and you're a single mother, and you have a child under seven years of age, then you will not be covered by the training -- or you're cut off the living-allowance provision.

G. Wilson: The next question, then, if you're a single male with custody of a child under the age of seven, is: will you also be exempted from these regulations?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know why you don't think there would be a sense of equality there.

G. Wilson: We're not actually determining what I think; what we're trying to determine is what the minister thinks. I think that there should be equality, and the minister heard my comments in principle about the bill yesterday. What I need is clarification as to whether or not, if you're a single male with a dependent child or children under the age of seven in your custody, you will also be exempted from these regulations, as would a female.

Hon. M. Sihota: Your civil libertarian streak that you referred to the other day is the same as mine on this one, so the answer is yes.

[2:45]

G. Wilson: That's good news, and it's nice to get that on the record. I assume also, then, that in the reference to "dependents" that goes through this bill -- and I'll get into that in a later

section -- a dependent is anybody who is deemed to be financially dependent upon the youth. Is that correct? Or are we only talking about a dependent in the strictly legal sense?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is not contained in the legislation. That will be in the regulations, which can only flow from this legislation, and it will be based on economic dependency.

R. Masi: I'd just like to return to the definition of "youth" in terms of it being a person who is 19 years of age or over. I wonder, and I would like to ask the minister, why 18 is not a more appropriate age, considering that it is the age of eligibility for voting and for service. Perhaps more importantly, there is a large component of youth out there who are probably in need of this type of support.

Hon. M. Sihota: The age of majority in British Columbia, by statute, is 19; hence the decision to have it at 19.

While I'm on my feet, because I didn't have a chance to respond yesterday to all the points that the hon. member made in his opening comments, let me just deal with the following, as well. The point that he made with regard to individualism, which he said was important to him, is one which I concur with in terms of the tenor of his comments. I think, as you can see from my comments to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, that we are going to have an element of subjectivity in dealing with individualism.

On the comment you made with regard to passive resistance, that could pose a problem. Obviously we're going to have to take a look at issues of passive resistance. If the intent is to frustrate the legislation through passive resistance, then I would take the attitude that they are violating the obligation that they have under the statute. On your comment of outright resistance, in that case the individual would not be eligible for the living allowance. On the issue of enforceability, obviously that is going to be a challenge, as it is with any issue in any part of government.

We will, at least at the front end, be very vigorous in enforcement because if you do that at the front end, that tends to assist you all the way throughout.

I commented yesterday on your point about academic achievement versus skills training in schools, and I concur with the direction of your comments in that regard.

On your point about effectiveness, I don't know if 95 percent is a bar that I could jump, and I'm not sure if that's one you could expect me to scale. The point of effectiveness is clearly one on which we will be issuing ongoing comment about how we're meeting the targets that we've set. I intend to be quite transparent in that regard so that the public and the opposition, as well as the government, can measure the effectiveness.

In response to your question, it's the age of majority.

C. Hansen: I want to refer to something that came up earlier in this discussion, regarding the flexibility of program A versus program B -- which I certainly support and think is needed. One of the concerns that I have about some of these training programs, as defined in this section, is that often the track record of these programs in the past has been that they are set up by separate contractors. You'll have applications that will be submitted to the ministry which will adjudicate them and select certain organizations to deliver those services.

My concern is that a lot of these organizations are isolated from each other. We have a multiplicity of training opportunities around the province, but unless you have the opportunity for them to communicate with each other through a common database or common information, it's very difficult for a counsellor in any one of those centres to give advice to a youth as to what the appropriate program is for them to be in. It may not necessarily be the specific program that is housed in the building that they've gone to seek counselling from on that particular day.

I was wondering if the minister could give us information about the information-sharing of the different training opportunities that will be available to the participants in this program.

[ Page 810 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, with regard to the participants in the program, we will clearly give them an indication of the range of options that may be available to them. Obviously, the worker at the front end who assesses them will try to stream them into a general area; but if there's an interest in, say, the service sector, then we'll let them know what the range of options is there. We obviously are the funnel, in the sense that we approve these contracts. We have a knowledge base or a database, if you want to put it that way, of the programs that are available in the province and in particular communities. I don't think that's necessarily the problem.

The challenge is the first part of what you mentioned, which is knowing that (

a) the people who provide these services also share data among themselves about what's out there, so that their applications don't overlap; (

b) they have a good understanding of what's working and what's not; and (

c) they're relevant to what's out there in the workplace. That's a greater challenge. However, the hon. member should also know that there are a number of agencies, organizations and efforts that we put into making sure that there is some cross-breeding in that sense, as well.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that from the minister. If I can just flag an issue that's been raised with me by individuals who have conducted these types of training in the past.... They have felt that the data, the information that's available to them, is quite inadequate for them to do the job of steering their clients in the right direction -- what's in the client's best interest.

On to another question, to follow up on the issue of the 19-to-25-year-olds. One of the complaints we've heard in the past from individuals who have been part of programs that have previously been under the Ministry of Social Services is the lack of consistency of the programs they are dealing with. They find that the programs come and go, change. Even the individual counsellors have difficulty keeping up with the constantly changing programs and job training opportunities for individuals who have found themselves on welfare.

One of my concerns in this case is the way this particular one is set up. We have youth who can be on one program under the Ministry of Social Services until their nineteenth birthday, and suddenly they're not only on a different program, they're under a different ministry. Then they go from age 19 to age 25, and suddenly on their twenty-fifth birthday they again change ministries and programs. This is the kind of thing -- being passed from office to office -- that a lot of young British Columbians find extremely frustrating.

I'm wondering if there is any opportunity for flexibility in terms of the age at which a young British Columbian comes into the programs under your ministry and also, at the other end, the point at which they can again go back into the programs that may be under the Ministry of Social Services.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's walk through the continuum. If you're 18, there is data-sharing between the two ministries, from Social Services to my ministry, so that the file comes across, so to speak. If you are 25 or 26, again, not only does the file go across.... Let's say we have a program for 19-to-25-year-olds that's not fully subscribed. We would reach to that pool of people between 25 and 65 to fill those seats so that that element of the population which may appear to be exempt from these opportunities under the provisions of this legislation are nonetheless captured administratively.

If we have seats, we'll move that pool of people in to fill those seats so we maximize the training opportunities that are available there.

I think, in terms of the flow of information across the continuum, in terms of the services provided to the individual, we do a reasonably good job. To be candid with the member, I don't think that's where the problem is. I think the problem, in terms of the multitude of training programs, is that there is not necessarily a good level of cohesion between, let's say, federally administered training programs -- manpower programs, as they were known -- and provincial programs.

That's why it seems to me that it is essential in the redefining of our relationship with the federal government... that it is appropriate for the federal government to look at the devolution of those programs into one basket -- namely, the provincial government. To that degree, I think the federal government is moving in the right direction when they're offering those programs to us. Now, if they're not offering the dollars, that's where I think tensions arise.

I really think that where we have failed in the broad public sector is at the level where federal and provincial programs, and the dovetailing of those programs, does not happen to the degree to which I think efficiency would warrant. That's where I think the real challenge in society is. I do think the federal government deserves credit for now finally agreeing to our request for devolution, although there is a lot of negotiating around the reality of dollars. I think that's where your point is more poignant, rather than at the front end.

C. Hansen: I think the point the minister makes is very well taken. I certainly heard those types of complaints.

Coming back to this issue, I hope it will be addressed very seriously -- the opportunity for communication among the multitude of programs. My suspicion in terms of what I've heard in talking to people who were involved in this sector is that today you have far more not-for-profit organizations around this province that are putting applications in to your ministry to be part of this training program than for probably any other program or experience in the past.

I think if there was a problem in the past with communication among trainers and counsellors, then that problem is going to become even more pronounced in the future, because you've got so many new players in the training industry who are trying to be part of helping make this program work.

There is some wording in the definition in

section 1, under "employability program.... " It means "a program to facilitate entry into the work force." I found the choice of that word "facilitate" interesting. In a lot of the other materials that have been presented with regard to this bill, we often use the words "prepare for." But facilitate is a much more powerful word when you're talking about facilitating entry into the workforce rather than simply preparing an individual for the workforce. I like the word facilitate better, but I guess it begs the question.

When you're facilitating entry into the workforce, there's still the question about the jobs that are available at the end of this program. I'd like to have the minister.... As he may know from second reading, a paramount concern of mine is the raising of expectations of young British Columbians that this is an avenue towards a job and a career and towards fulfilling their dreams. When they get through this program, will there, in fact, be work? Will there, in fact, be jobs? I would like the minister to speak briefly on the kind of work force that they will facilitate these young British Columbians to enter.

Hon. M. Sihota: I look to you, hon. Chair, because I honestly think we are getting into a second reading discussion as opposed to a committee stage discussion, with all respect. So I'll be brief.

Obviously our challenge is to be relevant in the training that we provide and, as I've said on several occasions, closely

[ Page 811 ]

wedded to the private sector in defining the niche opportunities that are there. We did a number of pilot programs in preparation for the introduction of this program to see whether the systems and the approach that we had would work. They did involve non-profits, because I'm not an advocate of the opposite -- that is, hiring government people to work within government to provide these training programs. I'm not too sure that gives you the flexibility you'd want on a program like this. So we took that route on the non-profit contractual side, as opposed to just hiring more government employees.

I think you need the responsiveness because as the dynamics of the marketplace change, you want to have young people fitted into those niches as they arrive. I lectured you yesterday on the phenomenal economic record of this government. I'd be happy to do it again, but I don't want to offend the rules.

The Chair: Given that

section 1 is

definitions, if we've had sufficient discussion on that, I was going to suggest that we move on to other areas where some of the topics that you would like to discuss may be more relevant.

[3:00]

C. Hansen: I guess the point I'm making is that the language that has been chosen in this particular

section of the definition.... It doesn't say to prepare entry into the workforce; it says to facilitate entry into the workforce. So I believe it is quite relevant to this discussion.

I would like to ask the minister where this training and this employability lead to in that context, and what he sees in terms of.... I know there is talk of 13,000 jobs being sought in the private sector -- which isn't in any of the printed material. I understand it came out in the press conference before the bill was introduced. I guess I'd like the minister to give us some indication as to the makeup of that 13,000 number, and also a sense of how many of those jobs may come, in fact, from government, government agencies and Crown corporations.

Hon. M. Sihota: We said 13,000 training spaces, not 13,000 jobs. With the indulgence of the member, I can give you many examples of the kinds of agencies we've contracted with, to give you an indication of the kinds of skills we're retraining people for, which then gives you an indication of the kinds of jobs our labour market forecasting would suggest are there for young people. I want to make it very clear that ythe commitment on the part of the government is not to provide 13,000 jobs, but 13,000 training spaces for young people to give them the skills to be able to enter the workplace.

So I just want to make sure that that's clearly understood. You've read otherwise in the Vancouver Sun , and that happens from time to time. So I hope I've corrected that. If you want, I can give you examples around the province of different agencies that we'll be doing work with to provide those kinds of services. I certainly have that information.

C. Hansen: Actually, this is my last point, if others wish to follow on this particular section. I'm glad the minister clarified that, because certainly in all the communication that has come across with regard to this bill, the impression is there that we're talking about 13,000 jobs. So what the minister is saying in this chamber today is quite different from the perception that is out there with regard to the Youth Works program. I'm glad that he clarified that.

As one last point, I know the minister indicated in his opening comments that I had some of my stats wrong in my second reading. If he went back and checked in the Blues from yesterday, he would, in fact, know that I wasn't quoting unemployment stats for this age group but rather for youth unemployment. We may not be comparing apples and oranges on that particular one.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the numbers you gave were national, not provincial. At least that was the information I had when I got back; there was a difference, but no one's going to.... Let's cut that stuff out. We both know that there's a challenge here to provide employment opportunities for youth. We have a good program here that's well thought out and it's one which you voted for yesterday.

V. Anderson: With regard to the employability program, one of the things, when you go to work to get a job, is to have some kind of certificate or diploma or credentials for the kind of skills and training. What kind of recognition, certificate, diploma or credentials will people have as a part of the employability programs that they can take with them to employers?

Hon. M. Sihota: In some of the programs that we offer, there will be certificates, for example, that testify to the fact that they were participants and passed this program. Let's take a simple example like industrial first aid. That may be a skill that we'd be teaching. It's certainly a skill in demand. They would then be issued with a certificate saying that they have passed this program. Another example is, if they had gone through a pre-apprenticeship qualification and training program -- obviously through the Ministry of Labour -- we'd provide certificates that warrant the people who have been involved in those kinds of programs. So that would occur.

V. Anderson: In the age group 19 to 25, a significant number of people are married. If one of them is dependent on the other one, are they both eligible, or is one of them eligible without the other person required to be eligible? What's the relationship in the married as against the single?

Hon. M. Sihota: If they are married and they have no children, they are both required to participate in the program.

V. Anderson: So the minister is saying that the spouse is not considered to be a dependent. If they're a married couple and one had elected to stay at home rather than go to work, you're saying that that isn't a choice that they have, that one can't be considered as a dependent.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's true.

V. Anderson: That's very interesting in relationship to the equality rights that this government has been stressing in many other areas. Now, if one of these persons who happens to be 23 years of age has living with them and dependent upon them a grandparent who is 75 years of age, which is quite feasible, is that person considered as a dependent along with that youth, when you're talking about dependents? What is the nature of dependents in the relationship that is being discussed?

Hon. M. Sihota: The 75-year-old wouldn't be covered by the act.

V. Anderson: So somewhere in there in the regulations, I gather, you're saying that there is a distinction between when you are a dependent and when you're not a dependent?

[ Page 812 ]

Presumably, if you're under 18, or four or five years old, or two years old, you're a dependent, and if you're 73, you're a dependent. But if you're at 45 and you have a handicapped adult brother or sister, are they a dependent?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's go back to the basics. If you are between 19 and 24, you are covered under the provisions of the act. If you have two people that are 22 years of age and married to each other, they're covered under the provisions of the act, and they both must comply with the provisions of the act. In other words, in order for them to get their living allowance, they have to participate in a training program.

There are exceptions. If you are a couple -- let's say 22 years of age -- and you have a child under the age of 7, then of course, as I pointed out, there's an exemption there. If, on the other side of the coin, you are 26 and your spouse is 24, then you're covered under the statute which covers the older member of the family. Therefore you would be covered under the income assistance legislation.

V. Anderson: That's good news for those who may be older and younger. So the only discrimination is if you're within the ages of 19 and 24. That's the only time you can't be a dependent. If you were married and a handicapped person within that, you could be a dependent. Would that be true?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. If you're handicapped, then you're covered under the disability provisions and therefore are not covered by the provisions of this legislation.

I take some umbrage with the use of the word "discrimination" in a generic sense with regard to people 19 to 24. Yes, it is true that under the provisions of this legislation we are singling out for assistance those people between 19 and 24. We are giving them a helping hand. We are saying to them that we do not want them to enter into a cycle of dependency upon the state. Rather, we want to make sure, if their skills are deficient, that we provide them with the skills necessary to allow them to achieve their human potential.

I have no difficulty singling out that age of our workforce. I think it is a tragedy that young people, and the welfare system as we have known it -- which we are now changing -- did not get that helping hand. So we're giving them that helping hand. What we're doing here is taking people out of the sticky web of the current social assistance system and providing them with a trampoline so they can make it in life. I think the Minister of Finance couldn't put it any better than I just did.

V. Anderson: I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the minister, just trying to understand the parameters. So what you're saying is that a married couple under the age would then be treated as individuals and they would both be as eligible for the training and experience and support as if they were single?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

V. Anderson: One other question with regard to employability and a person being able to come into this program. If a person has been through the program as a 19-year-old -- has spent a year or so in the program, taken a course, got a certificate -- and ends up getting a job and then that job disappears, not because of their circumstances.... That job is no longer available to them, and the certificate they had is no longer usable. Are they eligible to come back for a second program within that time period?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you are 19, and if you were at the second phase of this more focused job assistance program, let's say, and you worked for a month and then you were unemployed again and came back into our system, you would go right back to where you were, in the sense that you would continue within phase 2. You wouldn't have to go right to the front of the program. I believe that answers your question.

C. Hansen: I apologize for jumping back into this discussion. This is a case where, because the bill was called so fast, some information I was waiting on literally arrived after this second reading debate started.

It's a problem of transition from the programs that have been in place until now to what will happen after this bill takes effect. But if you don't mind, hon. Chair, I just want to quickly read an actual case. There is an individual on welfare who has been very successfully taking a high school completion program. This person was looking forward to going on to a college program, which was all set up. Approvals were in place.

Then he found out that because of Youth Works coming into effect, he is in fact cut off; his training is set back because now he has to wait for the completion of his seven-month process before he can even get back into picking up where he was leaving off. I wonder if the minister sees any flexibility in the program to allow for cases like this.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's not the case. First of all, if they're eligible for a student loan, they'll be covered by the student loan provisions and they can continue with their program. I suspect that's probably what would happen in that case.

C. Hansen: I can't read fast enough, but I know that's partly covered in here, too, so I'll have to go back and double-check that section. I may come back to that; if not during this debate, then directly to the minister's office.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's just assume that's not the case. I've told staff that it is a policy glitch, as I see it. Just for the hon. member's information, if they're not eligible, we will iron out that wrinkle in the system.

[3:15]

The Chair: Hon. members, we're on

section 1, which is

definitions, as opposed to the whole bill and all of the committee's items. There are lots of other sections; I suspect that many of the points you may want to make will come up in these other sections. We're on

definitions at this point. I'm sorry; I probably ought to have reined everyone in a little earlier, but I am doing so now.

C. Hansen: Speaking specifically to the definition of youth, hon. Chair, these programs are now being restricted to individuals between the ages of 19 and 25. There are a lot of youths between the ages of 15 and 18 who are currently in training programs under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Services. I wonder if the minister could tell us what happens to individuals who are in those training programs.

[ Page 813 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: They are clients of the Ministry of Social Services. Therefore they will continue with the program that provides them with assistance under the Ministry of Social Services. They only come into our arms when they're 19.

C. Hansen: Would we have youth who are 17 or 18, perhaps, in the same training programs as 19-to-25-year-olds, as is currently the case, yet the billings for those would in fact be coming from different ministries?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's possible. As I said earlier, you could also have the other situation. You could have someone who is 26 years of age and in one of these programs because the space is there. Obviously, from my point of view -- and, I would think, from the taxpayers' point of view and certainly from your point of view in your situation as a member of the opposition -- the last thing any of us want to see is a training program with the seats not fully occupied and the taxpayer paying for it.

We will move people around based on the nature of the program and the nature of their need. I suspect, however, that with most of these programs most of the filling will happen for people in the 25-to-64 age group.

C. Hansen: I have one last point on the subject of

definitions. I do have some other points on which I will adhere to your directive and raise under other sections. In the past, a lot of the students participating in training programs have been eligible for transportation and clothing allowances and things like that. Is there any flexibility in these programs, especially when you get into things like job search, that counsellors can draw on to assist those participants in the program that need extra assistance for transportation for job search or to make sure that they are properly dressed?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there's a limited ability to do that -- up to $100 per month.

C. Hansen: Is that at the discretion of the counsellor?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, based on one of those policy manuals that the member for Vancouver-Langara brought in.

K. Whittred: I'll be very brief. Regarding the definition of youth as it applies to this act, I understand the 19 to 25. There are, however, many young people between the ages of 18 and 20 who are still in public school programs. Does the minister see any discrimination related to that? I believe that the public school programs go to the age of 20, therefore they would not fall within what would be subsidized programs.

Hon. M. Sihota: If they're in those programs at school, they'll be entitled to complete those programs.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

R. Masi:

Section 2(

b) indicates that the minister may "make grants to a person or group of persons who undertake to provide youth with employability programs." Could the minister tell me which types of employability programs qualify and which don't?

Hon. M. Sihota: There would be a whole range of programs: job readiness programs, independent assistance programs, job search programs. There is a whole galaxy of opportunities -- for example, the chamber of commerce program we offer here in Victoria; community at work, where we've hired about 300 young people to work for a year; programs that we'll be offering through various colleges in terms of tourism hospitality; and training in different portions of the province. I can give you a list of the kinds of programs that we anticipate being up and running by August 1.

In fact, when I announced the program, I had a printout. I left it in my office, but I'd be happy to give that to the hon. member.

R. Masi: In terms of grants to the employers and people offering the programs, is there any limit on the amount of the grant?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

R. Masi: Is there a limit on the number of times that a person or persons can qualify for the grant?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

R. Masi: Can you give me any examples of the groups that have already received the grants?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've actually got it. It's sitting on my desk, and I'll ask staff to get it. When it comes back here, I'll read some examples. I don't have every one that's approved, but just to give you an example of the kinds that have been, if you're interested in ones that we've approved in your constituency, I can also get you that information probably by Monday.

R. Masi: In terms of the grants, if, for example, an employer takes on a participant primarily because of the grant and then, because of economic conditions, the employer is faced with laying off the participant because the employer can't keep the participant on, are these grants renewable again for that employer? Or is there some kind of a marker against the employer in that case?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes and no. If it's an effort to try to secure from government some kind of subsidy, that's not acceptable, to my way of thinking. So the answer is yes, there would be a marker.

If it's a case where you can legitimately say the circumstances were such; they anticipated this level of business and an unforeseen event occurred or the market just didn't materialize, then you'd probably take a different look at it. There would have to be some subjectivity in it. I don't want to penalize people who make an honest effort to hire young people, but I do want to penalize people who try to make an effort to take advantage of the system. You know and I know, and everybody else in this House knows, that most British Columbians in businesses will make an honest effort to do the right thing.

There's always going to be a situation where someone's going to try to take advantage of the system. Unfortunately, those kinds of situations tend to get more play than others. Obviously that's something we're going to have to deal with, and I suspect that it's something that we will deal with, because it's just human nature for some people to try to take advantage of the system. Our objective has to be to try to limit that to as small a pool as possible.

If I become of the view that there is an effort on the part of people to try to take advantage of what we've created here, then I will bring in a more rigid policy. I'm not going to do it at the beginning, but if the behaviour of others causes us to do that, we'll do that.

[ Page 814 ]

Let me give you some examples. The Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre is providing training on ESL skills to about 100 people here. The Bridges project here in Victoria will offer 60 people assistance in training designed for women. The Community at Work is a program with the chamber of commerce and local businesses to hire about 300 young people initially here in Victoria, and it's a very successful program, actually. Throughout the province there are a multitude of other programs.

Some of them, like the tourism and hospitality training programs in Nanaimo through a private trainer, will provide opportunities for 30 people; non-profit societies to provide job search techniques.... I'm just picking a few of them.

In my constituency, Esquimalt, we have the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House offering services to about 300 people. They deal with everything from opportunity readiness programs to computer skills training, employment skills training and employment search strategies programs.

We have a vocational assessment program that's offered out of Kelowna, and an entry-level service training program that's offered out of Prince George that will do everything. This one caught my eye, because it does the WHMIS certificate training program. There's a requirement for that in that area, in terms of handling dangerous chemicals. They'll provide assistance in terms of SuperHost and Tourism B.C. programs in that regard. They'll deal with everything from how to operate cash registers to processing hunting and fishing licences.

We expect about 48 people to be trained through that in response to a need in that community. I trust that gives the hon. member an indication of the kinds of programs that we provided assistance for to date.

G. Wilson: While some on the list of programs that the minister read out may be very valuable, I think we'd have to concede that few of these are going to give long-term, career-based jobs. Learning how to run a cash register might get you an opportunity on a part-time basis or possibly even short-term employment, but this is hardly skills training we're talking about. This "establish employability programs....

" If I was an unemployed person between the ages of 19 and 25, I'd hang out a shingle, call myself Powell River Youth Employment Agency, apply to the government for a grant and get a job, because that's about the only way you're going to get a job: apply for money to train people who don't have a job so that you can train trainers to train trainers and stay working.

[3:30]

My concern is the regional nature of need. Within my own community -- as the minister knows, Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- there is an unacceptably high unemployment rate. The opportunities at the end of a training program are limited because of the limited amount of investment in the kinds of industries that area can support. They're predominantly resource-based; they're linked to the fishing and forest industries to a large degree. They are outdoor in nature, and many of them, I think, clearly require very technical training, especially if you're going to try to get access to some of the value-added production coming from the wood industry.

My question to the minister is: if we're going to establish these employability programs, will that include those programs that already exist within the colleges and institutes of the province, and will those programs now receive the funding that they had a difficult time getting this year? For example, in Powell River there's a cook's training program that we can't get dollars from Malaspina College for, because it's deemed to be a satellite, and there aren't as many people there who need the money as there are in Nanaimo.

So the money is concentrated in the central campus in Nanaimo, and the regional campus has to suffer. I could give you lists of these training programs that exist from month to month because we have no long-term commitment of funding.

My questions are: (1) is there going to a regional component to make sure that there's a balance in making sure that the moneys go into the regions of the province; (2) are those training programs then going to be developed specifically with those communities in mind so that people in those communities can access them; and (3) is there going to be some guarantee of a long-term financial plan for these programs so that people who enter them don't find halfway through that the government has changed its mind and the program has evaporated, as occurred last year?

You end up with a whole classroom of students who are only halfway through a program and find themselves right out on the street, having to start from scratch. I'd like the minister's comment on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes, and the answer to the third question, as far as I can crystal-ball it, is yes.

G. Wilson: It's nice to get such succinct answers to these rather lengthy questions. I'll try to make my questions more succinct, and we might even get through this bill quickly.

I understand, then, that we have a commitment from this minister today that the skills training programs in the colleges, in Malaspina College in Powell River, will receive full funding and long-term funding to ensure that those students who are ready to enrol in September will have full enrolment and that every student who wishes to get in will be able to get a seat. That's what I heard the minister say, and perhaps he could confirm that.

Hon. M. Sihota: That isn't what I heard you ask; that's what you didn't ask. You know that's not what you asked.

I must commend the hon. member. He has always been very good at advocating for his constituency, and that may explain why he's back. But he's back with four and a half years of experience under his belt, and he knows that some of those questions he just asked are questions that are best left for estimates and not for this debate.

But let me say this: we will provide, in the context of this legislation -- so as to be in order here.... If there is a young person that requires financial assistance to take a program that is available at your local college, then we will provide the financial assistance. We'll work with students to get that financial assistance. They will take the program if seats are available. But I can't, nor can you, ask the provincial treasury to fund 100 percent of all the college needs in a community.

I get calls coming in all the time -- now to segue into estimates -- that want money for this program, that program and that program. Everybody has to live within a budget, and it may well be that we won't be able to fund a particular program at Malaspina College.

So in terms of your constituency, you're really lobbying for more money for your college, and that's cool, as far as I'm concerned. But I have to tell you that, as you also know, we just can't do that for every program. But when the college identifies a program.... One thing I have a lot of respect for in terms of the college system in this province is that they are responsive to community needs, and they do tailor their programs to deal with community needs.

[ Page 815 ]

In your constituency, you're right: there are people who require particular skills that may not be the kinds of skills people in Esquimalt want. So we'll try to fund those kinds of tailor-made programs to provide people with these skills. We're going to put an extra effort into the 19-to-24-year-olds, and some of these programs will be offered through colleges. Okay?

C. Hansen: I just have one point to make under this section. It's actually following up on the comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Maybe I'm rephrasing it in a bit different way, but one of the concerns for a lot of these organizations is the sustainability of their funding, and I'm wondering.... I appreciate the fact that funding for these programs has to be voted on, on a year-to-year basis, but it also gives a great deal of uncertainty to a lot of these organizations that are trying to do that kind of forward planning.

I'm wondering if this has been addressed specifically by the minister, and just what kind of reassurance can be given to some of these very successful organizations to ensure the continuity of their programming and their funding.

Hon. M. Sihota: I've been meeting with the universities and colleges to date, and I've tried to give them an indication of what they can anticipate over the next three or four years. There will be variances, but I don't think they'll be particularly large. But we try to give them an indication. It's the same with these programs. I'm not interested in coming before this House and asking for your endorsement for this legislation, only to terminate it a year from now after having built up an infrastructure.

So if we're going to proceed with changing the welfare system as we know it, then we have to recognize that this chamber is going to finance that, and avoid the old system which didn't work and which, in some ways, made welfare a better deal than work.

So we're bringing -- and I mean this.... We're taking a radically different approach to deal with these issues of youth unemployment in comparison to other jurisdictions. The kind of right-wing approach taken in Ontario, and in Alberta in particular, is unacceptable philosophically to this government. We are demonstrating through the provision of these legislative changes, and we're showcasing to the world that there is a different and better way to do things. This is a radical departure from what has been, and it is a radical departure from what is in Alberta and Ontario.

I think that the theme of this administration, be it in my previous portfolio where we tried to show people how we could do things differently in terms of protecting the environment and still have the best economy in the country.... The theme here, again, is to showcase how the philosophical values that we as a political party bring to public policy in this province can create a better set of circumstances for young people here in British Columbia than in Ontario, so that there can be a rational debate across this country about the fact that there are options.

The kind of neoconservative approach to these types of matters which has taken place elsewhere in this country is not the only way to go.

C. Hansen: I agree with the minister on that and I think, certainly in this party, we have looked at some of the programs that have been developed in Ontario and in Alberta. Like you, we reject those concepts as well, and the way that they have been implemented. If you can indulge me just a minute, I think what we're doing is this: we're eliminating welfare, we're not going to workfare, but we're giving you some bus fare so you can participate in train fare.

But back to my original point, hon. minister. With regard to the sustained funding for some of these organizations, I was wondering if the minister could make a commitment to doing everything in his power and within the ministry's power to give sustained reassurance or sustained funding to these organizations. So often what happens is that the funding for these programs comes down to the eleventh hour. You have students who are involved in programs, who are enjoying them. They enjoy the organization that they're working with and the environment that they're learning in.

Then you have the managers and the supervisors of those training programs who are telling their students: "Look, we don't know what's happening as of April 1, because we have heard nothing from the ministry in terms of our ongoing funding for this program."

I'm wondering if the minister could make a commitment that one of the principles behind the administration of this program will be to give as much reassurance as possible to the training institutions and those not-for-profit organizations and educational institutions that they will not be brought down to the eleventh hour, not knowing whether or not their funding is going to be continuing into a new year.

Hon. M. Sihota: The faster you approve this legislation and the faster you pass my estimates, the faster they will know how much money they have.

C. Hansen: I guess what I'm looking for is.... Certainly the faster we get some answers to our questions, the faster all that will happen.

But I'm not talking about the implementation of or the royal assent to this legislation. I'm talking about a year from now or two years from now. Too often we see funding for these programs come down to the eleventh hour, and nobody knows what's going to be happening next week. You wind up with the whole confidence in the training system starting to break down, because the youth who are dependent on the training systems are getting all of the wrong signals from the administrators of the programs, who in turn are not getting positive signals from government for the sustainability of their funding.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the issue of sustainability, the long term, of course that's what we want to do here. We want to avoid some of those problems that have occurred in the past. I think I can be fairly confident in saying that I would anticipate that the commitment will be there for several years.

V. Anderson: Particularly, if you're a non-profit group, my experience over many years is that if you ever rely on the dependability of finances from government, you're in trouble no matter who you're working with. That's always a caution most people are aware of.

Section 2(

a) talks about establishing employability programs, and then in (

b) it's making grants to outside agencies -- probably non-profit for the most part, or private. In (a), is the government indicating that they are going to establish some programs which are government programs as against other programs which may be non-profit or private-run programs? Are you going to use both non-profit and private-run, and will you be establishing some that are run by government members themselves?

Hon. M. Sihota: There will be non-profit and there will be programs run by organizations and agencies that are

non-

[ Page 816 ]

governmental agencies. There will be services provided by government through the ministry, and there will be training provided by the government through established training institutions where these people would be eligible to go, like a community college.

V. Anderson: Are there a breakdown on the total budget as to certain areas or categories where people will be applying? Will there be categories, and if so, how are they broken down and what are the approximate funds available in those categories?

Hon. M. Sihota: With all respect, that is a discussion for estimates. If the hon. member could hold that question for estimates, we'll deal with it there.

V. Anderson: Are there criteria in these programs that will involve both study and work, or will there be some that are mainly study programs, others mainly work? Is it expected that there will be both study and work as criteria in all of the programs?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is work-based training and there are employability programs, where there is both work experience and study, if you can put it that way. There are job search programs and assistance programs in terms of the more basic stuff -- computer training, for example, which could be just study.

K. Whittred: Just one question. When you listed the various programs a few moments ago, you did not mention work experience. I am sure that work experience must be part of this somewhere, and it seems to me that that would be the most valuable part of this program. A good work experience program, as your government has pointed out through Skills Now, will basically take care of all these others. Could you please explain to me, minister, exactly how work experience fits into this?

The second part of my question gets back to this: if a young person is on welfare, why would they wait seven months to get into that work experience? It would seem to me more sensible to do it right away.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the reason I didn't mention work experience at the front end was because of the context of the question. The context of the question related to the agencies, as opposed to the nature of the programming. Second, with regard to the comments you made about work experience, a large component of this program will deal with work experience. Work experience will play a major role in this. In fact, the programs that I articulated in response to the question from the member for Delta North laid out a whole range of programs that have, as their central element, extensive work experience.

With regard to the final component of your question, there are a number of points we made. I made those in second reading, but to go through them quickly.... First, the fact of the matter is that a large percentage of young people -- I don't have the number here; I had it here with me yesterday -- are off the welfare system -- I think a quarter of them within one month, up to about 60 percent within six months and 75 percent after seven months. We are going to deal with the ones that require a focus. In addition to that, I'll be frank, there are also fiscal considerations in terms of our ability to provide training assistance for everybody on the front end of these programs.

I have avoided trying to be overly rhetorical, but the hon. member should understand, given the view that her political party took during the course of the election campaign, that it just doesn't compute that she would ask for these at the front end. Given the economic plan that your party released, it would not have been at all possible, with the reductions in programming you were proposing in the economic plan that you advocated during the election campaign, to fulfil the point that you are making.

Section 2 approved on division.

section 3.

G. Wilson: The next three or four sections are probably among the most contentious, from my perspective, in the bill. What it does is speak to the level of authority that the minister is vested with, with respect to the lives of these individuals and the limited opportunity that the people have to take charge of their own lives.

Perhaps the minister can tell me if I'm right or wrong, but certainly my reading of this says that, subject to whatever the regulations are, which we haven't seen and we haven't yet debated, "...the minister may refer a youth to a specific employability program that, in the minister's opinion" -- not in the opinion of the youth, not in the opinion of anybody advising the youth, but in the minister's opinion -- " might.... " It says "might"; it doesn't say "will." It says: "...might assist the youth in (

a) finding employment, or (

b) becoming more employable or self-employable." Then it says: "The minister's authority to refer a youth to a specific employability program includes the authority to alter or refuse a referral."

So after this has been done, the minister then can alter that. The youth virtually has no choice, because it says under

section 3 that a "decision made under this

section is not open to review in a court or to appeal under

section 8(3)" -- which is the appeals

section under the new act that's coming in. So the minister has the power under this to say, "You will take this training program whether you like it or not, whether you think it's in your interests or not, because I do," and halfway through that program may say: "Guess what, we've changed the terms of it. We're now going to alter the arrangement in terms of your program." He can do that without the youth's consent, and all the time, the youth has no right of appeal and knows that if they say, "Forget it, I'm not going to do this," they're cut off; they get no money.

Surely there's a better way to do this. We're talking about people aged 19 to 25 who may even be married. That adds greater complexity to it, because if they're married and one of the spouses may be deemed to have dependent children.... If they're a married couple with a child seven years or older, it applies to both. If the child is under seven, then my understanding is that the

interpretation is that there may be an exemption for one. The opportunity to move, the opportunity to access these programs and the opportunity to be able to facilitate that individual's particular personal residential needs, if they happen to live in a community where these programs that the minister deems are available aren't available, may make this individual ineligible. Yet there's no right of appeal.

[ Page 817 ]

This is just draconian stuff. You don't provide the powers to a minister so that he may come down with a fait accompli to somebody between the ages of 19 and 26 -- that in itself is a discriminatory and arbitrary designation -- and say: "You will do this course which I have set up, because in my opinion it's in your interest; and if you don't complete it, you're cut off." How can this minister, having the track record in politics he has -- and I've followed his speeches very carefully -- now stand up and advocate this to be a sensible way to proceed to assist people who, for the most part, need bridge financing to help them get through a troubled period until they can get gainful employment?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let's make an important distinction here. You can appeal the living allowance determination; you cannot appeal the program determination. Having said that, under the provisions of this

section we are saying to young people: "We will work with you to find a program that works for you, that matches your skills, your needs, your requirements, your deficiencies, your weaknesses and your strengths, and try to put you in a program that makes you more employable." Remember the overall arching context of this legislation. They get their living allowance if they participate in a training program. Remember what I just said at the outset of our debate on

section 1. I said that there would be flexibility and subjectivity in the determination. Clearly, in the application of any legislation, including this one, there has to be a sort of test of reasonableness. I have to apply that in the policies that I set, and when I set those policies, staff have to apply that same test of reasonableness. There is accountability. If I am being unreasonable, ruthless or draconian -- to use your words -- in the application of this statute and in the administration of this as it relates to young people, then clearly that would be a matter of comment.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: What do you mean, where or how? The hon. member has been in political life long enough and, I think he said, is aware of my speeches -- I'm impressed -- well enough to know the attitude that I bring. He knows, and I think most members and the Chair know, that if one makes a case in this chamber or outside this chamber that we are not adhering to that standard of reasonableness, then of course I respond -- and I will. I would suspect that a predecessor would, as well. This is not punitive legislation; this is legislation designed to give young people a helping hand.

It is tough for some to accept the fact that we're saying that if you don't participate in a training program, you're cut off, but I honestly believe that that consequence has to be a part of the obligation. "If we're going to be obliged to provide you with a training program," I say to the young person, "then you're going to be obliged to take it, and if you don't, you're going to be cut off." I suspect that the public would endorse that. They will not endorse a take-it-or-leave-it unreasonable position on the part of the ministry or on my part.

There is a level of political appeal which has enormous power in our system. In the time that I've had the privilege to serve in cabinet, I have to tell the hon. member that anyone I've worked with, even when I was in opposition, would apply this standard of reasonableness. That would occur. If we vary from that, we'll hear about it, and then, we have to respond to it.

G. Wilson: There were three parts to what the minister included in his response that I want to touch on briefly as I ask this next question.

First, nobody is disputing that if there's a social contract with an individual that in order for you to qualify for assistance from government there's a training program, and it's agreed that you have to do it or you don't get the money.... Nobody's disputing that you shouldn't get the money for nothing. Certainly that's not in dispute at all, and I think the minister's quite correct when he suggests that generally the public would like to see people better skilled, better trained, and able to get employment at the end of income assistance dollars. That's not the issue.

The issue here is one of the minister's right to determine on behalf of a youth what program, what type of skill, what type of training and what type of work they're going to do. That's the problem. If a young person believes that they have talent and wishes to.... For example, if they have something that often isn't given the level and quality of respect it should be given -- if the young person is an artist, a musician.... The music industry can generate multimillions of dollars for some and a handful of pennies tossed into their guitar cases for others.

But if they believe that's something they themselves wish to aspire to -- to become a professional musician.... The question will be whether or not this minister will allow that individual to pursue training in music. Or will the minister say: "No, because there are no real jobs out there after you become a musician, so we're now going to say you have to go into computer technology"? Or if the individual wishes to pursue art, as a visual artist -- a painter -- does this minister say: "Well, you know what? There aren't very many artists that make a lot of money; most of them have to supplement their income.

So no, you're not going to be allowed to go into an arts training program, because there's no way that you're going to end up with money at the end of that. It's not an employable skill"?

Now, the difficulty we have here is not that we don't expect young people to live up to a social contract with the government, because the vast majority will and do. The problem is: who directs this new class of worker which we're about to create as to what they are going to be trained for and what work they're going to do? In this case it's the government, and that, I think, is wrong. That's the problem.

The freedom of the individual to pursue what they believe will best put them in a position to satisfy their life goals will be removed, because the threat of lack of assistance is going to require them to adhere to what the minister says. That's a problem in this legislation, because it does give that minister that power.

I'd like the minister to refer specifically back to where it says "in the minister's opinion." Who determines what's in the best interest of that individual? On what advice is the minister going to formulate that opinion? On what statistical evidence is the minister going to make a determination of whether or not this person should go into training program A or training program B, denying possibly that individual from pursuing their life ambition -- which is, say, to become a musician -- because there aren't many that make much money?

The minister knows what I say is correct. This is a dramatic departure from what we have done in the past with respect to allowing each individual the right and freedom to pursue their ambition and dream. We've become determined that our society will have this new class of worker who will become skilled to do a certain niche of jobs -- until, of course, they hit 26, when the employers can bring in another class of these people on these training programs at far less cost to them, and allow the people that have just gone through programs to continue. Perhaps the minister could respond to that.

[ Page 818 ]

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: It is the opinion of this minister that it is not on to collect assistance from the state and do nothing. It is the opinion of this minister that if you want to be a musician and you are on a living allowance from government, and you come to us and say, "This is a training program that will move me from taking change in my guitar case to having my first CD," we'll look at it. We'll probably help you get into that program, to allow you to achieve your potential as a human being, because the purpose of this legislation is to help people realize their dreams.

It may be that a musician or an artist should go into a computer technology program. Maybe the application of computer technologies would assist in developing your career in visual arts, because there's a linkage there -- similarly with music and computer technology. Who makes that decision? That decision is made in an office under the auspices of this ministry, with a worker talking to a client. The member for Delta North the other day talked about passive resistance -- a good phrase.

If, in the opinion of the worker, there is really an effort to do indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly -- in other words, just simply collect your allowance and do nothing else.... If there is that kind of resistance to participation, then there are consequences that can flow under the legislation.

So it's not on that you do nothing. It is on that you participate in a training program that we will provide. That's our obligation. Your obligation is to participate in it, and if you don't you're cut off. It's as simple as that. There are times when you need to deliver a message as simple as that and as blunt as that, and we haven't done that at times in society. We're doing it now under the provisions of this legislation.

There are other times when you don't need to be as blunt as that. There are times when you can take a look at a situation and say: "Now, look, you're a pretty creative person, and we're going to deal with you in a very creative way. It may still generate a headline in the Vancouver Province , but what the heck. In your situation it's warranted, and in that case we'll be creative with you." We can't judge every matter that comes before us in this chamber; but that's the kind of tenor that will be provided by staff. I trust that gives the hon. member the appropriate level of comfort.

G. Wilson: My last comment on this section. It doesn't give me a great deal of comfort, because while this minister.... I have followed this minister's political career, to a degree, and I have read many of his speeches and, frankly, I have a great deal of respect for this minister. I believe that there is a certain level of compassion for people of all political stripes and all ethnic and economic backgrounds, and that's why I think this minister made a good minister responsible for the multicultural effort that was going on. During our debates on the constitution, I remember a lot of issues where we worked together fairly well. So I have a great deal of respect for this minister.

The point is that we're not always going to have this minister, not necessarily even this government or the people that are on either side of this House regulating this particular piece of legislation. And the problem with it is one of choice. Nobody -- not I, nor anybody else in this chamber, to my knowledge -- is advocating that the state should continue to pay people to do nothing. I don't think anybody's advocating that here; certainly I'm not.

But what we do advocate is that there has to be a certain level of choice with respect to an individual making career choices as to how they wish to proceed within the limits of whatever assistance they can get from government. Frankly, I don't have confidence simply because this minister says: "Well, when we sit down, we're going to be creative with some and less creative with others." I don't have confidence that a bureaucrat in an office, who has a limited interview with one individual, is going to be in a position to make that decision.

The flexibility, which the minister says will be there, remains to be seen. What if the individual says: "No, I want to pursue a career in music. That's my career choice, that's what I want to do, and it's going to take some years until I'm successful." If you look at many successful musicians, goodness knows, a lot of them did stand outside liquor stores playing for quarters in their guitar case before they made their mark. If the minister is saying that there will not be one single option and that the minister can, as this

section says, determine what the employability program can be, then we need to hear that from this minister today. We need to know to what extent there will be a variety of options and choices placed before individuals before such a determination is made. If somebody is simply trying to resist, as the member for Delta North suggested, and is simply sitting back and saying "No, no, no," because they want to do nothing and get income assistance, I agree that should not be acceptable.

But there are others who have a determination to follow a career path that may, in the minister's opinion, not have a lot of worth but may have a tremendous worth to the individual. That's what we need to see protected, and that is not protected here. So I'd like to get that assurance from this minister before we move on.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm beginning to sense that the hon. member's a frustrated musician, and that's driving his comments.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: You do play one, that's true. Maybe a frustrated actor. I could go further but I won't. All of sudden, there's a range of other options, which I'm sure would bring chortles from members of the opposition, but they're things I won't say.

Yes, you have the assurance that there will be flexibility.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the hon. member is right when he says that there may well be a successor, who doesn't have the political qualities that the hon. member attaches to myself, but he's wrong in suggesting that it could be a different political party. I do not foresee on the horizon of British Columbia a political party other than the New Democrats that will be in office for a long time.

R. Masi: While I often agree with the minister, I don't think I can agree with the final statement on the succession of the New Democratic Party.

In terms of

section 3, reference is made right off the bat to "subject to the regulations." It seems to me that throughout this bill the regulations play a very important role. I believe there are 26 indicated in there. I just wonder -- maybe this is a rookie question; I'm not sure -- but when do we actually see these regulations? When will they be out?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is a rookie question. Every once in a while in baseball a rookie serves a pitch right up the middle, so I thank the hon. member for that.

[ Page 819 ]

Let me just tell him that the statute will be passed, and then cabinet will develop a set of regulations that it has the authority under this statute to do. It will then make those public through the release of the orders-in-council, which usually come out on Fridays. Then you will see the regulations.

Regulations do not come to this House for our approval. Under our system they do put a lot of power in the hands of cabinet because they do give definition to the legislation. I believe that the checks and balances of the system are that if the regulations are unreasonable, the best and, certainly from my experience, the most effective way that that has been dealt with is that hon. members, both in the course of debate in this House during estimates or question period and outside the House in terms of comment, have an impact on the redesign of regulations.

Occasionally regulations are challenged in court, but the basic process is that the statute is passed and the regulations which then flow from them must fall within the four corners of the legislation passed by cabinet, and it's the prerogative of cabinet to do that.

R. Masi: I have some concerns, similar to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- but perhaps not as dramatic, if we're talking about acting -- in terms of agencies and counselling services. I think this is a critical point when we're talking about individual differences in young people. Could you give me an outline or a model that you'd use, or perhaps some of the counselling services that are already in place?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be happy to do that. I'm going to try to use an example which is familiar to myself, although while I'm doing it I might try to think of one that might be familiar in Delta. Take Esquimalt, which is the constituency I represent. We have a large number of young people that are unemployed in that constituency and dependent on social assistance. They will no longer be required to come to the office of the Ministry of Social Services. There will be a separate office for youth operated by this ministry. It may not be located right in Esquimalt.

Obviously, for reasons of efficiencies we might take advantage of an existing office, let's say in Victoria or in Saanich. At that point they will be determined to be eligible for the program, and then we will work with them and may put them in touch with a number of agencies. For example, again using my own community, we may send someone off to the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, which historically has offered programs like the types I mentioned earlier: job search programs, résumé-writing programs, job readiness clubs, computer skills programs, employment strategy programs and career development programs.

That may be where we would refer them to.

They may come in and have both the linguistic and intellectual skills to sort of leapfrog over all of that. But on reflection, since they recognize that they may have missed an experience in life, they may wish to participate in a program offered at a community college or at university, in which case we would steer them in that direction. As I said at the outset, we would give them a helping hand.

I would suspect that there would be a large number of people who would be inclined more to vocational than technical training, and then we would try to ascertain what their interest is and try to steer them toward an agency, either private or public, that provides that type of programming.

In Delta, just knowing a bit about your constituency, we already have a number of immigrant assistance agencies for linguistics skills or, particularly, programs for women. We might use the repertoire of programs that are there to assist people who are from ethnic backgrounds. In my constituency, there is a very small percentage of that; in your constituency, there's a large percentage of people with ethnic backgrounds. We would also take a look at private and public facilities -- colleges like Douglas, Kwantlen or whatever -- in your part of the world.

We'll try to do a sort of broad scan of what might fit and then try to work with the individual to achieve their potential in that regard. I can see this in terms of the programs we've already placed people in. The cream of the crop is very easy to deal with, and you can get them in; for others, it's going to be more work. At that point.... I think that it's agencies like the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House -- to use my example again -- which started coming to us and saying: "Here's where you're not quite doing it." Then we redefine our program offerings to begin to deal with what they identify as deficiencies within the repertoire of programs that are out there.

We're not trying to make work here for agencies, but we want them to respond in a way that they can provide the programming that actually is really required out there. Obviously, that level of scrutiny and judgment falls upon the shoulders of the ministry and myself. If we're just approving agencies for the sake of saying we're approving them, then I suspect that we'll be criticized for that, and that's warranted.

C. Hansen: I want to refer specifically to

section 3(1), where we talk about the referral of a youth to an employability program. From my reading of the various sections, this is probably the best

section of all to talk about the seven-month wait period that's in place. This is probably the aspect of the legislation that gives me the greatest concern. For all the good intentions of the legislation, this is the part that is the backward step. It is casting some of these young individuals adrift for seven months -- granted, with a little package they can read and try to get self-direction from. I would like to get a sense from the minister why the figure of seven months was arrived at.

I know that there was extreme pressure put on this minister from his staff, from the Ministry of Social Services staff and from stakeholders who have been involved in the Youth Works program during this trial period to reduce the seven-month period. I'm just wondering if he could explain why we are sticking with that.

[4:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think I answered the question in part, and I thought I answered it pretty well, with regard to the question that was posed by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but let me just walk through it again.

A good number of these people find themselves off social assistance well within that seven-month period. A quarter of them are off within the first month. There are a number who just have the skills and are very temporarily on the allowance, so they don't necessarily require the kind of tailor-made programming that we'll do after the seventh month. I don't have the numbers that I quoted yesterday, but a good number of them are off within three months.

That's where there is a bit of a perceptual problem in society. Society tends to think that these young people are on assistance forever, doing nothing and smoking illegal substances, and that's just not the way it is. I'm sure the member for West Vancouver-Capilano would agree with me on that point. So that's part of the explanation: people do have the skills and they don't really require that intensive attention.

There's another subset that requires more intensive attention and we start to pick them up as they spend more time in

[ Page 820 ]

the system, so we capture them at that point. The seven-month period is when we really start to sort of tailor-make programs for them. But we do believe that in that period -- let's say between four months and seven months -- if we just give them more help in terms of focused job search, that in itself will reduce the number of people on assistance. Finally, we get the ones that really need the help and then we sort of kick in from the seventh month to tailor-make programs. So in a broad way, that's one explanation.

The second explanation is based on fiscal resources and our ability to provide that kind of intensive program for everybody. There are limitations in terms of how much money anybody has to spend, including our administration. If we are to avoid criticisms from you with regard to deficits, and if we are to maintain the highest credit rating in the country, which we have, then we also have to be fiscally prudent.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was kind of missing the hon. member. I was wondering where he was in the course of this debate, but he still hasn't spoken in this debate. Of course, he's heckled a bit.

So that's another sphere of concern. The other point I wanted to make in response to your point is that although you don't mean this, I'm sure, there's almost an assumption in your point that it's as if people don't have training before they get into the situation. We have attended to that individual through the education system on their way through life, so we have invested in that individual in that regard as well. I don't think we should forget that we have actually equipped people with skills that should allow them to be employed. So that's another sphere.

Then there's another sphere. Some of these people may find themselves employed in an industry that is cyclical or seasonal in nature, and because it's cyclical or seasonal, they may be on for three or four months just because of the nature of the industry -- fishing, forestry or whatever. Given the combinations of changes in federal employment insurance programs and the reduction of benefits the feds provide, that gap, they may be on our system. But they may not necessarily require training, even though they're in the 19-to-24 age group.

That really is a reflection of the determinations that are being made federally as they try to grapple with their fiscal dilemma, which is more acute than ours. If they were a province, their credit rating would be lower than ours. I think it's a $30 billion deficit and a $500 billion debt, and it's remarkable that members opposite don't criticize them more often. I think that's the range of explanations.

Let me also say -- because I said this to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- that it is a perplexing question from the opposition. Your own economic plan issued during the course of the election campaign would have denied even that which we are doing. It seems awkward to me, as is often the case -- or just surprising -- that the opposition would ask that type of question when its own platform would not have allowed for funding. There is a requirement for consistency, and that's not there.

It's amazing how members opposite can come into this House, and by listening to people and making some determinations with regard to debt, say that the government has betrayed its commitments on health and education. It's amazing how you can come into this House and make that kind of comment, given that your own economic plan didn't include it. We are doing better than your party proposed during the election campaign, and better than any other province in the country.

C. Hansen: As the minister knows, the Liberal Party set out a very specific plan for Work First, as we would call it, and it was completely funded in our economic plan. I would be glad to sit down with the minister at any time, in his office or in mine -- his is much more comfortable -- and go through the economic plan and show him exactly where that funding is.

I must say that I'm also very pleased to hear the priority the minister gives to responsible fiscal management of the affairs of government. This is obviously something we support. In every program that goes through this chamber for implementation that is something that should be top-of-mind for all of us.

We digressed there quite a bit from the point that I was trying to make. The concern I've got is.... You talk about the number of welfare recipients, the number of young British Columbians who have gone onto Youth Works programs in these past months who have in fact found employment in a very short period of time -- in a matter of weeks or months. They're obviously the ones who have opportunities or who can find opportunities.

My concern is for those individuals who don't fill that bill; for those individuals who, on the first day they walk into an office to seek the assistance of government -- those who they are dealing with, whether it's in a not-for-profit organization or a financial aid worker.... There are many individuals who we can tell from day one need to be put into a program. They don't need to be put on the street with a job search package for seven months. They need to be put into a training program, a program to assist them with job search -- some of the very basic skills.

Some of these individuals can be identified from the time they first come into contact with your ministry or other ministries.

The point I'd like to make is that in this act, under other sections -- specifically under regulations -- the minister has the power to bring in that kind of flexibility. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to look at using that flexibility to try to capture some of those individuals who really should be put into training programs from the time they first come into the system.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, if someone comes into the system and wants to go to university or college to upgrade their skills, we'll set them up under a regime of student financial assistance. I don't think that's the type of person you're talking about.

You're talking about people with whom it's readily apparent -- as I understand your point -- that they require training, and you're saying: why should they wait for seven months? I think we both agree that this is a subset of people. We may disagree on the size of that subset, but my own sense of it is that it's a subset. I don't know how large it is. Time will obviously tell. Your point is not invalid. Obviously, we're dealing with it much the way I laid out at the beginning, because there are some people that clearly don't require that kind of attention.

In the evolution of this program, I will watch to see how it develops. If, in the development of the program, we are able to delineate people clearly and get a clear assessment of additional fiscal resources that we require to deal with that subset -- because we'll start to get some data on the size of that subset -- I'll be open to revisiting that issue. I don't think the point is invalid. But at the front end of the program -- for all the reasons I outlined earlier on -- I can't guarantee that I could service them all, because I don't know what the bill would be, in part. I want to watch the program as it develops,

[ Page 821 ]

and I want to watch the broad envelope in terms of the number of people that are on social assistance as we will now know it. If indeed the number of people on social assistance continues, as it has, to drop each month, that gives us a little more flexibility in terms of the program.

If indeed that flexibility is not required to offset the deficit or the surplus, as the case may be, that the Minister of Finance has in terms of his pressures, and we can see that we've got some flexibility here because revenue is coming in as we had forecast, expenditures are on line and the Social Services budget is declining, so that we've got a little bit more -- to use another famous phrase -- wriggle room, then we will clearly redefine some of the public policy options that are available to the people we have to serve.

I just want you to understand that. So often in the context of this chamber, people reject ideas because of where they come from. This is a point that's not lost on me. Obviously, we've thought about it in the design of this program. It's clearly not lost on you. We have to watch how all of this progresses, and then I'd have a greater appetite to begin to make those adjustments. But quite frankly, I don't think I can do it at the front end, so we're not going to.

I want to get the numbers; I want to see the data; I want to see who's coming in; I want to see what their needs are; I want to see how we're responding to them; I want to see what's happening to the overall numbers. Even the three-month residency requirement has had an impact on those numbers, and the mere fact that we're introducing this legislation will have an impact on those numbers. Then we will move along. That's basically the broad, strategic approach in my mind.

C. Hansen: That is exactly the answer I was hoping to hear from the minister. I didn't expect that we'd see any dramatic change today. Clearly, in this legislation there is room for flexibility, and I'm glad to see that the minister is prepared to monitor it and exercise that flexibility.

One thing that I would just like to raise is the importance of keeping this kind of data so that analysis of the successes and failures within the program can be measured. Certainly, this is a subject that we would want to visit again in estimates next year, so that we can look back and try to gauge where the shortcomings of the program are.

[4:30]

I'd like to refer just now to subsection (2), where the minister has the authority to refer youth to specific employability programs. I have a report that's been sent to me by many of the stakeholders that have been involved in the Youth Works program to date. A couple of issues were raised; one of them was the need for good program coordination. The comments that came from stakeholders were that without coordination, it will be difficult to deal with bottlenecks, and clients will be confused when there is a lack of direction. I think this goes back to some of the issues we discussed earlier, in terms of good communication among those who are delivering these services.

The other point which I think is even more directly relevant to this

section is the selection of candidates. The issues are that there should be a solid initial screening process to ensure success. It goes on to say that without proper selection, some resources may be wasted as clients make the wrong choices, based on program availability rather than on skills, abilities and interests, and personal motivation.

My question to the minister is.... He has the authority to direct youth to a specific program, and I am wondering what kind of evaluation will be done to ensure that a participant is in the right program. For example, will there be an aptitude test? Is there an interview? How do we ensure that the right young British Columbian gets into the right training program?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there will be an interview process and front-end screening of people at different phases. The depth of the screening does swing on what phase they're in. At the front end, on the eligibility side of things -- whether they're even eligible for the allowance -- that work is done by the Ministry of Social Services. Let's go to the back end. Just to give you an example, by way of illustration, when they're into the detailed job search, they go through a far more extensive process. We interview them, assess them and move on from there.

Your point is well taken; it's just a commonsense point. We're obviously going to try to do the best job that we can with the resources we have. My expectation of staff is that they try to put in as much time as they reasonably can under the circumstances to assess these people. You're right. We could be wasting dollars and time if we don't do it right. That's a valid point.

C. Hansen: Could I just clarify this? Once they've completed the seven-month self-directed job search, would they then meet with an individual in your ministry? The minister is nodding his head. Thank you. They would then go through an assisted job search program, which is with a counsellor who is on staff in your ministry, and then somebody on the staff of your ministry will direct them towards an appropriate training program?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. That latter phase is contracted out; it would be through an agency.

C. Hansen: I guess I'm looking for consistency and an umbrella group that would really be responsible for developing a good understanding of the various training programs that are available, so that the wrong student in the wrong program would be avoided as much as possible. This contractor who is steering people to the right training program: is that an organization that would deal with the whole province and with all participants?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. It would not be one agency for all participants throughout the province. I don't think the province is a monolith. It would have to be agencies located within communities, agencies that understand what's out there on a regional basis and that can provide services based on regional realities.

C. Hansen: One last question: this infrastructure that's there -- the network of participants; your staff, which in turn feeds into the contractors around the province, who in turn make sure that students are in the right programs.... When would that infrastructure be in place and operational?

Hon. M. Sihota: The structure is already in place. The ministry, in the run-up to this program, knowing that it was to start in the period of August 1 to September 1, started to put in all of the appropriate structures to do these kinds of evaluations of individuals. I'm not sure, to be candid about it, that it is as perfect as the hon. member would like it to be. I'm not sure if it's as perfect as I would like it to be. Certainly, from an implementation point of view, we have some challenges here, and I've told staff that.

We're working very carefully to make sure that the continuity the hon. member is referring to -- that some symmetry

[ Page 822 ]

in the design and the placement and the thought process that goes on -- is there. We've been having gatherings of the people who have been putting forward these kinds of programs, to try to have some commonality to what's there. Obviously, it's only when you start the engine that you find out if it will run perfectly. I can tell the hon. member that staff are under enormous pressure to make sure that it runs well. I made that very clear to them.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I hope the hon. minister hasn't scared his staff too much in the process of making it clear to them.

A couple of things came up in that discussion. Did I understand the minister to say that when a young person comes along -- say, John -- he goes first to Social Services, and Social Services is responsible for him for the first seven months? Then, when it comes to the contracting for training beyond that, he goes to Skills, Training and Labour?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I have been very tough on my staff -- very tough. That's my responsibility. I made it very clear to them that I expect this program to work with a minimum number of glitches and that they're accountable for it. I make no apologies for that. I'm not trying to frighten anybody, but this is a program that this government has brought forward.... It's a program that is revolutionary in terms of the way we're changing welfare. In terms of my responsibilities as a minister, my responsibility is to make it very clear to staff what my expectations of them are.

You know, I've learned something while I've been doing this job for the last four and a half years: you have to be tough. Those messages are communicated, and they understand it.

On the point about the process, they are initially contacted and received by the Ministry of Social Services. They could be within the context of that ministry for up to seven months. Take, for example, a seasonal worker. They could also interface with our ministry sometime within that seven-month period. It's an integrated system. Certainly after the seventh month they are in the arms of our ministry.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister explaining that. I think the assumption has been, when this was transferred over, that you applied through Skills, Training and Labour right from the very beginning. So I was surprised to hear that that's not the case; the two systems are still in place. They're still operating with both systems now, rather than just one.

When the agency is dealing with a person who comes in and they're referred -- not by the minister but by the agency -- to a particular job, one concern is that once that referral has been made by that contracted worker, the agency, who then represents the minister....

Section 3(3) says that that decision is not open to review. There's a concern there, because inevitably there are going to be conflicts of personalities, regardless of how capable people are, and there are going to be misunderstandings of the decisions made. That there's no review is part of the concern that we have.

I might comment to the minister that it isn't that we on this side automatically disagree with what the government brings forward. We all almost automatically disagree with the process of how they do it, not what they're attempting to do. I am concerned about the draconian method which is implied here. If there's a conflict of personality, which will happen in any circumstance, then automatically it's the client that's wrong and the contractor that's right. That's the implication here. Could the minister explain that, please?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me start with a basic point, and then I'll go to the specific point. The basic point, which is the backdrop to this entire legislation, is that it is no longer acceptable for someone to collect welfare and leave it at that. They have to, as a condition of receiving assistance from government, participate in a training program, period. If they do not, they lose their living allowance. That is a critical feature of the backdrop of this legislation.

On the personality dispute, to go to your specific point, if there is a difference on the basis of personalities, the client can go to the ministry or the supervisor within that ministry and make representations as to why this program isn't working for them. They have the ability within the context of employees to do that. They also have the ability to come to your office or to my office and ask us to intervene, as we often do in the work that we do in our constituencies. They have options available to them, but they are limited. This

section limits that. In my view, it is not on to engage in endless sorts of judicial appeals to try to get out of a program. That's also a message that's contained in this provision.

V. Anderson: As I indicated earlier, it's partly the way this document is written. As you read this document, what the minister has just explained to us -- that you can have review or reconsideration within the system -- is not contained in the document. That explanation is not in this paragraph. So that's part of the concern.

[4:45]

The minister is saying that you can't go to a judicial review or other appeal tribunal. He hasn't indicated in this document, at this point -- and maybe he takes this for granted; that's part of the difficulty here, why it soun