2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th 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)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 23

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23). Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill

24). Hon. R. Coleman

Introduction and first reading

Public Service (Merit Employment

Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001

(Bill 10). Hon. S. Santori

Introduction and first reading

Fumertons Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401).

T. Christensen

Introduction and first reading

Fumerton Holdings Limited

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr402).

T. Christensen

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Status of student employment programs

J. MacPhail

Representation by student associations on

provincial education committee

H. Bloy

Government task force on energy policy

J. MacPhail

Food safety and quality standards

J. Les

Bulk water exports

K. Krueger

Reports from Committees

Special Committee of Selection

Petitions

Smithers residents' concerns regarding

medicare and health care for seniors

Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill

20). Hon. G. Plant

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

M. Hunter

Third reading

Skills Development and Fair Wage

Repeal Act (Bill 22). Hon. G. Bruce

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

Third reading

[ Page 689 ]

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today I have the pleasure to introduce Dermot Nesbitt, Minister in

the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the government of

Northern Ireland. He is accompanied by his wife, Oriel. They are visiting

British Columbia. They came through the Rockies on the Rocky Mountaineer train,

have been to Whistler and are now here in Victoria. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Secondly,

I'd like to advise the House that I have some other guests from Penticton, Holly

and Scott Gannon, who are here in Victoria celebrating their tenth wedding

anniversary. Would the House please wish them all the best.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Plant: We have, I believe, in the visitors' gallery three visitors from the

United Kingdom. They are employees of the court services department, which is an

agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department of the U.K. government. They're here

to learn about how our court services sheriffs system works. The three

individuals are Mark Stewart, Gillian Wheeler and Jeremy Oliver, and I hope that

all members of the House will make them welcome to the House and to the province

of British Columbia.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm pleased to say that today we have in our galleries members of

the Alliance of American Consumers for Affordable Homes. These are friends of

British Columbia, friends of British Columbia's workers, friends of British

Columbia's forest industry.

Susan

Petniunas is the chief adviser for American Consumers for Affordable Homes.

Michael Fritz is the president-elect of the National Lumber and Building Dealers

Association. Bobby Rayburn is the vice-president and secretary of the National

Association of Home Builders. Barry Rutenburg is the national vice-president of

the National Association of Home Builders. Steve Conwell is the senior

vice-president of Home Depot. Scott Cameron is the co-Chairman of the Reusable

Pallet and Container Coalition. Donald Ferguson is the senior adviser for

American Consumers for Affordable Homes.

They're all

there to fight for free and open access to American markets and for free trade

for Canadian lumber.

H. Bloy:

Today I have the esteemed privilege to announce some very special people that

are joining us in the gallery. The group is the B.C. Young Liberals campus club

from Simon Fraser University, in my riding. Although the club is in my riding,

the group's members come from across the lower mainland. The group at SFU has

well over 300 members and is the largest club at Simon Fraser University. I

would like to introduce them.

We have

Mark Acosta, Richmond East; Janet Almond, Surry-Newton; Dan Bjorkdahl, Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; Andrew Danneffel, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain;

Kelly Dirksen, Burquitlam; Chris Ferronato, Burquitlam; Andrew Haskell,

Burquitlam; Ed Hsu, Vancouver-Burrard; Don Kapac, Burnaby North; Miles Lunn,

Burquitlam; Chad Pederson, who is the president of the club and the driving

force, from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; Adam Picotte, Surrey–Green

Timbers; Rick Sousa, Coquitlam-Maillardville; Christopher Steinbach,

Burnaby-Edmonds; Brock Stephenson, Burnaby-Willingdon; Bryan To,

Vancouver-Quilchena; Shaun Webb, Burquitlam; Sophia Wong, Port Moody–Westwood;

David Yau, Surrey-Newton; Kim Yee, Vancouver–Point Grey; and Jack Chang,

Burquitlam.

I would

like to ask the House to welcome these extraordinary individuals to the gallery

today and join in applauding Chad and his group from Simon Fraser University.

The B.C. Young Liberals have played an active role. They are indeed taking a

stand for what they believe in and in very high numbers in their group. If the

House would please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House four

people from my constituency. We have, from the silver city of Trail, Mr. Tullio

Esposito, a prominent businessman in our community, along with his wife, Sheila,

and their two children, Dimitria and Tullio Jr. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: I'm pleased to introduce four people visiting with us in the gallery

today: Brandi Allott, Leander Vanderbijl, Quinn Daly and Nikki McCallum. Brandi

and Leander are both co-op students from Camosun College in the applied

communications program. Leander is working as our website developer, and Brandi

does all of our desktop publishing. Quinn is the team leader for the ministry's

resource inquiry unit, responding to public inquiries regarding the ministry's

programs. Nikki is the issues media relations officer for communications in my

ministry. She does a wonderful job. She's soon to be leaving us, though, to have

a baby. She will be missed, and we wish her all the best. Please make them

welcome in the gallery today.

[1410]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I would also like to introduce to the House today Ms. Elaine

Wright and her daughter Linda Morton. Ms. Wright, who lives in Toronto, is

visiting with her daughter and with her favourite son-in-law, Mike, who some of

you know as my press secretary. I hope you'll make Elaine welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: As the minister responsible for tourism, I'm pleased to announce to

the House that we had some visitors here from the United States last year. They

liked it so much that they've come back to British

[ Page 690 ]

Columbia again this year, and I'd ask the House to please welcome Irving and

Robb Stolberg back to British Columbia.

Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituency

assistant, Ms. Hayley Gordon, who is visiting here from Vancouver. Hayley did

not work on my campaign as a young Liberal, but she did work for the good member

for Vancouver–Point Grey. If the House would please make Hayley welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to introduce to you a new member of the

Legislative Assembly staff. Ms. Karen Aitken, who is joining us in the gallery

this afternoon, has recently begun her work as our new coordinator of public

education and outreach. I know Karen is looking forward to working with us to

develop new and innovative public programs about the parliamentary process. She

will assist members in explaining to their constituents the work that we

undertake here on behalf of our communities, as well as the role and functions

of the Legislature. She brings enthusiasm and experience to this new position

and will undoubtedly be a strong asset to our Legislative Assembly team. Would

all members please make Karen welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 23 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: Bill 23 amends a number of statutes. I will try to give a brief

overview. Bill 23 honours the government's new-era commitment by doubling the

First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million over four years. It also

honours a new-era commitment by increasing the physical fitness and amateur

sports fund from $22 million to $44 million over four years.

As part of

the government's new-era commitment to support B.C.'s bid to host the 2010

Winter Olympics, the bill also establishes a $5 million Olympic arts fund to

support artistic and cultural activities to promote the games. This fund will

increase to $20 million over four years.

Bill 23

also amends the Budget Measures Implementation Act to implement a temporary

freeze on B.C. Hydro rates up to March 31, 2003, to allow the government's

energy policy task force to develop a comprehensive long-term energy policy for

British Columbia. The bill also amends provisions of the Constitution Act and

the Financial Administration Act to correct past unlawful practices with respect

to the use of ministerial vehicles.

The

legislation implements cabinet's decision to reduce the industrial development

incentive fund by $103 million to $497 million and to prohibit any new business

loans under the program. The legislation also amends the Members' Conflict of

Interest Act to strengthen that act to ensure that so-called blind trusts are,

in fact, truly blind.

In order to

assist the core services review of the Pacific National Exhibition corporation,

the government will be using Bill 23 to create some changes in the composition

of that board.

Finally,

further to cabinet's decision on August 15, this bill will repeal the Regulatory

Impact Statement Act. There are other housekeeping amendments which we will

discuss further in second reading.

[1415]

With that,

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Crime Victim Assistance Act.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Crime Victim Assistance Act. This act

will replace the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

Three major changes are

reflected in this legislation. First, this legislation removes non-pecuniary

benefits to bring the B.C. program in line with programs in other Canadian

jurisdictions.

Second, the

new legislation will restructure the existing benefits program, which is viewed

as inconsistent, unfair and discretionary and will be replaced by benefits that

are more directly appropriate to victims' needs. All other current benefits will

remain. The replacement benefits will include expanded counselling services,

protective measures to enhance safety of victims, vocational rehabilitation for

dependent spouses and travel assistance to attend legal proceedings and medical

appointments.

Third, the

new act will transfer the administration of the criminal injury compensation

program from the labour-focused Workers Compensation Board to the victims

services delivery division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. This move will align financial services for victims with other services

for victims, streamline administration, improve response time and increase

accountability.

[ Page 691 ]

Changes to make this program more responsive have long been advocated by victims groups

and stakeholders. This new legislation will allow the ministry to provide a

program that effectively responds to victims of crime while being fiscally

accountable to government. Even after these changes, the B.C. program will still

be among the most generous in Canada.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE (MERIT EMPLOYMENT

COMMISSIONER) AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. S.

Santori presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move first reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Service (Merit

Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001. This bill establishes a merit

commissioner. It provides that the merit commissioner will monitor the

application of merit by conducting random audits of public service appointments

made after June 5, 2001. Under the act a special committee of the Legislative

Assembly must unanimously recommend the individual. The bill provides that the

commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission also holds the

office of merit commissioner.

[1420]

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 10

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FUMERTONS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

Christensen presented a bill intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2001.

Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the

order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: This bill will restore the company Fumertons Limited to the

register of companies and deem it to have continued in existence.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

FUMERTON HOLDINGS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

Christensen presented a bill intituled Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001.

Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the

order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: This bill will restore Fumerton Holdings Limited to the

corporate registry and deem it to have continued in existence. I move that the

bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

STATUS OF STUDENT

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Finance had cut funding

for youth jobs protecting the environment. He didn't bother to tell British

Columbians that he had done that. He refused to say if he had any plans to cut

other youth programs. Today the opposition has learned that another group of

young people are about to be notified that their youth employment program, which

they were counting on, has been cancelled by the Minister of Finance.

My question

to the Minister of Finance is this: will he come clean today and tell British

Columbians, particularly the youth in British Columbia, how many more youth jobs

are going to be cut and in what programs?

Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, that was what I answered the member yesterday in question

period. I advised her that there was a program in place through PSEC where the

government provided subsidies to public sector organizations to hire people for

summer work, etc., and that I had decided that we could make a better use of

those funds. I announced that yesterday in the

[ Page 692 ]

House in response to the question that the member raises.

There

should be no one who currently has been hired…. That funding had not been

issued. It's for 2002. That funding had not been issued, and so there should be

nobody who has been hired who will subsequently have to be unhired. I have just

been providing notice of that to the various public bodies in the last day or

so.

MacPhail: Yesterday it was jobs for youth protecting the environment, and

today it's for jobs for students who are actually trying to get an education.

These are not jobs that were cut in Summer Works. These are jobs that students

rely on to pay their way through university and college for the upcoming student

year. Post-secondary institutions are about to notified that their funding to

hire students has been cancelled — absolutely. It's not funding that was

occurring so that people could have a summer job. It's so that they can continue

their education.

Students,

as recently as this morning, were counting on those jobs so that they could

continue their education and could do so in a way that the institutions weren't

penalized for that, for this fall. They're returning to college in a couple of

weeks. They've got no coverage, no provision for jobs whatsoever.

To the

Minister of Advanced Education, who took such great pride in confirming a

tuition fee freeze for this year alone: how many students will not have jobs as

a result of the Finance minister's decision, and what is she doing to make sure

that the Minister of Finance doesn't cut more youth jobs?

Hon. G.

Collins: Government always has to look at these programs on an ongoing

basis. We are trying to get our economy going again so that young people will

have real jobs, not just when they're going to school — in the private sector

and in the public sector as well, but more importantly in the private sector —

but also after they graduate, so they're able to work and stay in British

Columbia.

It's a

little hard to take from that member, when she sat in cabinet year after year,

sat at Treasury Board, was the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible

for a whole bunch of things; when we saw the youth unemployment rate in British

Columbia skyrocket — double — under their mandate to the point where it was

the highest in Canada west of Quebec.

[1425]

If we took

the logic of the previous administration, this government would go out and hire

every single British Columbian, give every one of them a job, and there would be

no private sector at all. What we're trying to do is stimulate the private

sector economy, and I know we'll create way more jobs for young people in this

province looking forward not just while they're going to school but after

they've finished school, so they can stay, live and raise their families here in

B.C.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with one further supplemental.

MacPhail: It's all very well and good for the Minister of Finance to stand

up and obfuscate when his real agenda is to give away everything he possibly can

to the corporate CEOs and take it away from the youth in our province.

This job

program was not a make-work program. These are students trying to get a

post-secondary education. They benefited from the tuition fee freeze, and they

benefited from the fact that there was a job they could work on, in a co-op way,

while they were getting their education. The Minister of Advanced Education

refused to commit to students of this province that she would continue the

tuition fee freeze, that she would continue to reduce tuitions. Now she's taking

away the job opportunities. In her estimates she did that. Now she's taking away

the job opportunities so that students who don't come from rich families…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …have an ability to get a post-secondary education. What did she

do when the Minister of Finance said he was going to cut all of these youth

programs? How did she stand up and defend the students of this province?

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is the number one priority of this government, and

we were elected on it, and that is to get British Columbia's economy going so

young people will have jobs year after year after year in British Columbia. The

member opposite thinks the only one that can provide a job for a young person in

British Columbia is the government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: We are creating the environment right across British Columbia

today, tomorrow and the next day to make sure that young people are going to get

a job in the private sector as well, continue their education, be able to build

their future, create jobs and opportunities for themselves right here in B.C.

and not have to leave British Columbia in order to do that.

REPRESENTATION BY

STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS ON

PROVINCIAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. The British Columbia

chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students was, in the past, maintained to

represent thousands of students across this province. Until recently, however,

the Canadian Federation of Students had an assured position representing

post-secondary students on provincial

[ Page 693 ]

educational committees. Will the minister tell us why this is no longer the

case?

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to make it clear that the decision about student involvement in

providing advice to government is critical to us. I view this decision as being

inclusive, not exclusive. Up to this point in time, the Canadian Federation of

Students has provided advice to government. It has been the only student

association that has been able to do that. The B.C. Liberal government is

committed to equality of opportunity. For example, there is a student

association named CASA, which represents the entire student body at the

University of British Columbia. We're simply opening up the process to all

students in British Columbia. It will not exclude students from the CFS, but it

will include opportunities for all students in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burquitlam has a supplemental question.

H. Bloy:

The provincial education committee makes important decisions, from regarding

student loan reviews to distributing federal scholarships funds and providing

policy recommendations for improving the quality of post-secondary education in

British Columbia. It is essential that students from post-secondary institutions

across the province have a voice on this committee. Can the minister tell us

what she is doing to ensure that these students are involved in the

decision-making process?

[1430]

Hon. S.

Bond: Our ministry has sent out letters to 28 institutions inviting

applications from students across the associations in this province. We believe

that listening to students on a formal and informal basis is absolutely

important. One of the first places that we're going to listen to students is in

the area of the tuition freeze, which we honoured and fully funded this year to

the tune of more than $14 million. We intend to include students in those

processes, and we certainly intend to include them in advice to government in

meaningful ways.

Interjections.

GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE

ON ENERGY POLICY

MacPhail: There's more good questioning to the Minister of Advanced

Education, which she's got a 50 percent record on answering now.

British

Columbia is concerned that this Premier is pursuing a hidden agenda with B.C.

Hydro. They don't want to see what happened to consumers in California and

Alberta happen to British Columbians. Yesterday, though, the Premier heightened

the concern by refusing to stick to his election promise to not deregulate B.C.

Hydro's transmission line.

The Premier

has named a number of energy consultants to his new energy review task force,

and virtually all of them are from the industry. Can the Premier tell British

Columbians today…?

Interjections.

MacPhail: Can the Premier tell British Columbians today…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: …that he has done his homework and ensured that none of the

members of the task force owns shares in energy companies that may stand to gain

as he proceeds to deregulate or privatize B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I am pleased to say that this government intends to carry out its

new-era commitment. As this member knows, there was no energy policy under the

former government. Everything was done behind closed doors. We intend to change

that. An energy task force has been appointed. That task force will include the

public in discussions as they move towards a report at the end of January. The

member opposite should know this: B.C. Hydro will be reregulated. The B.C.

Utilities Commission will have the opportunity to do that. There will be a

public energy policy that every single British Columbian benefits from.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, I'll repeat my question, because it wasn't answered. The

Premier has appointed energy consultants to review the public policy around B.C.

Hydro. He has also heightened the concerns of British Columbians that he's going

to proceed to deregulate — break up — B.C. Hydro and sell it off to

independent energy companies. Has he done his homework? Have all of these energy

consultants that he's appointed to review B.C. Hydro divested themselves of all

their shares in private energy companies? Just a simple yes or no.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member should know that we have done our homework.

FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY STANDARDS

J. Les:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. British

Columbians are increasingly concerned about the quality and safety of the food

that is sold and eaten in this province. This is due to recent food

contamination scares that seriously undermine the confidence people have in the

safety of the food available to them. Can the minister tell the House today what

steps he is taking to ensure the quality and safety of the food that's available

in our province?

[ Page 694 ]

[1435]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: The issue of food safety is a critical one for the public in

B.C. This ministry works together with the Ministry of Health Services in this

province on food safety issues. We have regulatory responsibilities. Together we

also work very closely with the federal agency, the Canadian Food Inspection

Agency, which has the primary responsibility for food safety in Canada. We've

worked closely in the past three years to review all of our systems and

regulations. I think it's fair to say that Canada has one of the best food

safety systems in the world. It has a good reputation for that, and we're

continuing to work to make it better.

J. Les:

The safety of food in British Columbia begins at the source — that is, on the

farms of British Columbia. If there aren't acceptable standards of sanitation on

the farm, then our food quality is going to be compromised. Can the minister

tell us what he is doing to ensure appropriate standards of cleanliness and

sanitation on British Columbia farms?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Certainly, the member is correct that food safety begins on the

farm and that farmers do have the primary responsibility for that. But I can say

that we as a ministry do have some very well qualified technical staff to work

with farmers on health and environmental issues. The spinach incident involved

some environmental issues.

We also

have a very modern lab that has qualified staff dealing with fish health, animal

health and plant health issues. As I said, we're working together with the

federal government on some new food safety programs that include HACCP, which is

a more modern approach, and two regulatory systems, and we will continue to

enhance those as time goes on.

BULK WATER EXPORTS

Krueger: A question for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Roger Grimes, the Premier of Newfoundland, has expressed his support for bulk

water exports to the United States. There is concern that under the provisions

of NAFTA, it would take only one province selling its water to the Americans to

open the floodgates requiring other provinces to do the same. What is the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection doing to ensure that we retain

control of our freshwater resources?

Hon. J.

Murray: We were very clear before the election that we are against bulk

water exports. That is uncategorically our position now, and it will be in the

future. The Premier has been very clear on that and has spoken out in public on

that issue. I will be taking that issue to a joint meeting of ministers in

September.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Hon.

G. Collins: I have the honour to present the first report from the Special

Committee of Selection for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

MacKay: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

MacKay: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 32 constituents of

mine from Smithers concerned about the perceived changes to medicare that will

have a dramatic effect on health care for all the senior citizens. They ask that

the government consider the health care provided to all seniors.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 20.

[1440]

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I want to use this opportunity under

section 2, which is a

restriction on the application of the act, to ask the minister whence this bill

came. I read in the media that it's modelled on a federal bill, but my

understanding is that the federal bill has a lot fewer restrictions on its

application than does this piece of legislation. So perhaps this is an

opportunity for the Attorney General to explain whence this came, what problem

he is trying to resolve and how it differs from

[ Page 695 ]

the federal piece of legislation in terms of its application or its

restriction from application.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not going to provide much assistance in terms of a detailed

comparative analysis. The member is as able as am I to undertake that. The

member referred to the federal legislation. There is also

an act in Ontario, and

when we put this bill together, we looked at both the federal act and the Ontario

act and drew from them what we thought was appropriate, given our objectives in

British Columbia. In terms of

section 2, for example, the restrictions on the

application of the act, I think that the enumerated restrictions in

section 2

are similar — broadly speaking, at any rate — to the restrictions that are

found in the Ontario legislation.

[1445]

As to the

problem that we are trying to fix, I spoke to that in second reading debate both

during my initial remarks and also in closing debate. We are trying to achieve

our goal of making government more open, transparent and accountable. This bill,

if enacted, would help achieve that goal. It's just one part of a comprehensive

package of ideas and a commitment, I might say. It includes a commitment to

listening to people who have other ideas about how we can make government more

open and accountable.

The primary

objective here is to ensure that the public can see who is dealing with the

government as lobbyists, by ensuring that there is a registry that discloses

those dealings and that the registry is open for public inspection.

MacPhail: The reason why I was asking…. I fully appreciate that we all pay

attention to the second reading debate, but I was hoping for a little bit more

substance on the problem, on what's trying to be achieved.

If the

Attorney General wants to continue down this line, I also raised some concerns

about the exclusions from coverage. Today in question period I raised the issue

of the Premier's appointment of a council to review public energy policy. Those

energy consultants who are on this council are either part of or represent

companies that stand to gain from any change in the way that public energy is

derived or paid for by consumers in this province. But they've been asked to

provide advice.

Are they

excluded, either as individuals or as the companies that they represent or are

part of, from having to register as lobbyists?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I think the member may be now into the exemptions or

restrictions in the second half of

section 2. It's important to note the way

that these restrictions are expressed. You don't get a lifetime exemption

because you happen to fall into a certain category of person. You get excluded

from the operation of the act if you are doing the specific things that are

described in, for example, subsection 3(2). Those include circumstances where

someone has made an oral or written submission in proceedings that are a matter

of public record to a committee of the Legislative Assembly or to any body or

person having jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under

an act.

So if, for

example, there is a committee of the Legislature that goes out and does public

hearings, as the committee that looked at the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act did…. We did hearings around the province. People

came to the committee and made submissions, sometimes orally, and sometimes they

sent them in writing. They were made in proceedings that were a matter of public

record to a committee of the Legislative Assembly. That being the case, the act

would not apply to those submissions. That's an example of the basic point that

the exemption applies to the issue, not to the person.

MacPhail: Perhaps we could focus specifically, then, on the energy council

that was just appointed. They've been asked to, over a period of a year, I think

— perhaps longer — provide advice on public energy policy. Some of them will

have in the past performed duties of lobbying the government for change in that

specific area. Let's just look at that council. How do they comply with this

act?

[1450]

Hon. G.

Plant: I want to resist the urge to make this a partisan debate,

although…. Well, I will for the time being.

Here is

something the government of British Columbia is doing that I think is a bit new,

or at least I think it's a good step. The Premier has asked some people to help

make energy policy, and there is a task force. I think the head of the task

force is in fact a deputy minister. That process is quite different, in my view,

from what you might call classic lobbying, which is when someone who works for a

government relations firm is hired by a client to undertake a campaign to

attempt to persuade ministers of the Crown to engage government in a project to

change some legislation. They are really quite different projects.

It's the

second project, the business of lobbying, that is the subject matter of this

legislation. Yes, it's drafted in terms of application and restrictions, and

people are going to have to work their way through the categories to determine

whether the activity that they're engaged in falls within the scope of the act

or is excluded by it. I don't mind testing the limits of it, but I don't think

we're going to get a long way down the road by asking questions where we're

attempting to fit square pegs into round holes. This is a bill where the round

hole, essentially, is the business of lobbying.

Now, it may

be that there are people on one or another of these task forces who have in the

past undertaken activities which, were they undertaking them today, would meet

the definition of lobbying. Again, it's not the person; it's the activity. It

may be, in fact, that some of those people who are involved in those projects,

like the Progress Board or the council on technology or the energy task

force…. I mean, I'm just speculating, but I'm doing so in the spirit of

attempting

[ Page 696 ]

to assist the member to understand this. It may be that some of those

individuals, when they're doing something other than fulfilling the terms of

reference for the project that we talked about, undertake activities that would

be called lobbying. If that's so, then in respect of those activities, they may

well be required to register under the act.

MacPhail: I'm trying to understand the act in conjunction with the other

activities of the provincial government. There's been a flurry of new

appointments and new task forces set up by the Premier. That's his history of

doing things that way: having everybody working and giving him advice, and then

he chooses amongst that advice. But if you're not included in his circle of

people that he's asked advice from, then you have to register as a lobbyist.

That's exactly what this act says: lobbying is making recommendations for

change. That's what it is.

People who

are not being asked directly by the Premier or a minister to give their advice

have to register as lobbyists. Someone who's actually making a presentation to

the energy council, the task force on energy, will have to register as a

lobbyist. They'll have to put forward their name as a lobbyist. Those receiving

the information, who have perhaps the same interests by virtue of what their

business is but have been asked by the Premier to give advice, don't have to

register as lobbyists.

Today we

heard that the government is expanding the influence of various student bodies.

That's great, but they could also undercut other student representative

societies by picking someone they specifically asked for advice from. That

society then is excluded from having to register as a lobbyist, but the other

organization doesn't get asked for their advice, and they have to register as a

lobbyist. It's a loophole that needs to be explained.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, it's not a loophole. Most of the member's analysis I disagree

with at the deepest possible level.

[1455]

Here is

another way of coming at the issue of what's addressed by this act. There's a

lot of business done by people who are lobbyists, who are paid to lobby

government, that the public doesn't know about. This act will in fact reveal to

public inspection the work being done by those lobbyists — not volunteers, not

members of task forces who don't get paid, but paid lobbyists who do work

without that work being exposed to public scrutiny.

Contrast

that, if you will for a moment, with the Premier's council on technology. Well,

let me make the contrast if it doesn't occur to the member already. We know

who's on the Premier's council on technology. We know exactly what they're

doing. The terms of reference of the council are established. The people who are

on the council are identified. Their background and history are known. The work

they will be doing is known. None of that is hidden from view.

There are

others, though — people who, in the day-to-day business of their lives doing

their business, contact government to lobby for change. The focus of this bill

is on those people so that all members of the public get to see what that work

is.

The

member's challenge is this: we're doing something a little bit different

compared to her experience. We are actually, in addition to doing this

initiative, opening up the processes of government so that more of what

government does will in fact be open to public view. The fact that the Premier

wants and needs advice on issues relating to the industry and the ideas and the

challenges around technology in British Columbia — the fact that the Premier

is getting that advice — is known. We know who he's getting it from. He's not

closeted in some room with people that we don't know about. The identity of

those people is known. They're not getting paid for the work they do, I don't

believe. The head of the council may be. I don't remember the details, but I'm

pretty sure that these people are getting, at most, some allowance in respect of

their expenses. They're not being paid by the organizations that they work for

to lobby governments for change. They're there to serve in a capacity that I

know the member will find difficult to believe. They're there, generally

speaking, as volunteers to serve the public interest to try to make sure that we

make good public policy in British Columbia.

The energy

task force is differently constituted. It includes some public servants as well

as people from outside government, but it's actually not about lobbying. This

bill is about lobbying. And this bill is about that part of lobbying, in

particular, which is done by people, many of whom are highly qualified and very

reputable professionals, but they do it out of sight of the public. They do it

out of the range of public scrutiny.

Our view is

that we can make some progress towards making government more accountable, more

responsible and more transparent by, for the first time in the history of

British Columbia, creating a process whereby those people will have to file with

a registry their undertakings, who they're working for and who they want to

contact so that the public gets a little better sense of how government is done

in British Columbia.

MacPhail: Through innuendo, the Attorney General takes a cheap shot

suggesting that this is something that would come as enlightenment for me.

Frankly, I had a policy, which I tried to put in place over and over again, not

to meet with lobbyists. I never understood why people had to pay to see a

minister. Sometimes there was no way around it. The client of the lobbyist

insisted that the lobbyist be present. But wherever possible I also suggested

directly to the person who wanted to speak to the minister that they just come

in themselves. Why bother paying anybody? So the practice is not foreign to me

whatsoever — to make sure that lobbying doesn't have ill effect on government

operations.

[ Page 697 ]

The

Attorney General brings up the current Premier's council on science and

technology. Well, let's look at that. There was a Premier's council in place

with the previous government. That was all disbanded, and the new council is in

place. Well, that new council, amongst them, donated $78,000 to the Liberal

Party for the election. Clearly, they have a vested interest. They didn't donate

to any other political party. The group of people on the Premier's council on

science and technology donated almost $78,000 to the Liberals.

[1500]

One thinks:

well, they have a relationship which they want to support there with the

government. Now they've been asked to give their advice. Isn't that what this is

all about: to limit undue influence on public office holders? I think that's

what we're called. What's wrong with the Premier's council on science and

technology having to register their intent? That's all. What makes it any

different? Why are they precluded from having to do that just because the

Premier has asked for their advice? There are people that I assume have very

specific intentions which they wish to pursue with this government, and by

virtue of being on a council, they shouldn't have to be limited in acknowledging

those intentions.

Hon. G.

Plant: I think that if the member looks at the announcements with respect to

some of these bodies which are the subject or focus of her questions, she'll see

that we know what their intent is. Their intent is publicly stated in the

documents announcing the creation of these councils and boards. So I don't know

what more one could do to assist the member in what she thinks are the

objectives we should be after here. With respect to those organizations, we do

have to achieve the same kind of accountability, openness and transparency that

this bill seeks to achieve in respect to the profession of lobbying.

If I may

say so, I think that the first part of the member's comments with respect to

dealings with at least some lobbyists is actually not bad practice for members

of this assembly to follow. If you don't need to speak to an intermediary, you

should speak to the person who has the concern directly. As the member knows, of

course, that's often a constituent. I think that the more of us who spend more

time with our constituents, the better informed we'll be about the issues on

their minds.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I have to attend to other business in the House.

The

Attorney General asks what more he could do. Well, I offer this advice. I

understand that my advice won't be taken forthwith, but I ask for consideration,

as a monitoring device, that

section 2, "Restrictions on application of

Act," sub-subsection (2)(

c) should be monitored very, very carefully —

perhaps even go to eliminating that restriction. I will be watching to see how

many people with overlapping duties perhaps, who are asked for their advice but

also play a role in the broader public domain of lobbying, do not have to

register as lobbyists because of this restriction.

Sections 2

and 3 approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 4, in the proposed subsection (1) by adding the following

paragraph:

(f.1) the

name of any public office holder whom a consultant lobbyist or in-house

lobbyist named in the return has lobbied or expects to lobby during the

relevant period; .]

This is an

omission that was discovered, in the area of reporting contacts that the

lobbyist must disclose, after the bill had been introduced and read a first

time. The intent of the amendment is to ensure the naming of all of the public

office holders who will be contacted or are being contacted by the lobbyist.

[1505]

Amendment

approved.

section

4 as amended.

Hunter: On

section 4, I have a couple of observations which arise out of my

career as a lobbyist — which I don't admit very often because, as the Attorney

General has suggested in his discussion with the Leader of the Opposition….

Interjection.

Hunter: Well, the Attorney General used the words "highly qualified and

very reputable people" in the lobbying industry, and I hope I meet both of

those descriptions. Out of my experience have come a couple of questions and

observations with respect to

section 4 and the amendment just accepted by the

committee.

On a

practical matter, as a lobbyist, given the six-month reporting periods for

in-house lobbyists proposed in this bill, I believe that issues can change quite

rapidly. On January 1, when a person might register for the next six-month

period and report the name of the ministry or the name of the office holder with

which the person expects to lobby, it is quite possible — and it is certainly

within my experience — that within seven days of that expectation and a filing

of that information, things can change quite seriously. You find that there are

different people in different ministries who have an interest in a particular

file that is of importance.

In passing

this bill, which I think is a very important initiative in British Columbia, one

that I think improved the life of those of us in the lobbying business,

certainly with the federal government after the Lobbyists Registration Act was

introduced there, I want to be sure that the provisions of the registration

section —

section 4, content of return — are indeed practical for those who

carry out the reputable job of trying to influence government on an in-house or

consulting basis.

[ Page 698 ]

Maybe I can

add my second observation while I have the floor, Mr. Chair, with respect to

section 4(4), which refers to the time period within which an individual who

ceases to be an in-house lobbyist or an employee of the employer named in the

return within 30 days…. I query whether or not that is a punitive timeframe,

given the potential penalty

section of the bill which the committee will

consider, particularly in light of the fact that in

section 3, in the

requirement to file the return, organizations are given two months or 60 days in

which to file information with the registrar.

There are

two practical issues that I think people in the business of lobbying, certainly

in-house lobbyists with which I have some familiarity, would find some

difficulty with in technically complying to the letter of the law — without

any suggestion that there is malice aforethought in not advising the registrar.

It's simply that, practically speaking, when you're dealing with issues with

governments, things can change, do change and have changed quite quickly. I

wouldn't want to see this bill put reputable, qualified people afoul of the law

unintentionally.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am grateful to the member for his comments, and I can assure you

that the general intention of the legislation is in fact to create a scheme that

will be practical. Having said that, I'm not sure I completely understood his

questions. So my answers may not be responsive, in which case I encourage him to

try again. The fault is more likely mine.

[1510]

There are,

of course, different filing obligations according to the nature of the activity

and who is doing it. Consultant lobbyists have a set of filing obligations, and

that is provided for broadly by

section 3(1)(a). The senior officer of an

organization that employs in-house lobbyists will have to make a filing, and

that is provided for in 3(1)(b). And then the in-house lobbyists employed by any

person other than an organization will have to make certain filings, depending

on the circumstances.

I think the

intention is to ensure that there is a filing in respect of each undertaking and

to impose timelines in respect to the filings for undertakings that are

short-term and therefore realistic within what I understand to be the context of

the member's concerns. I think the longer-term filing that is going to be

required of the senior officers of organizations employing any in-house

lobbyists is probably going to be more in the nature of disclosing the fact of

the relationship in general terms rather than a specific requirement to file

each and every single undertaking.

I want to

be sure I've understood, if my response is on point or not. I'll take some more

advice on this issue while I listen to the member's further comments.

Hunter: I'm not sure that the Attorney General did answer the point I made.

Let me try and restate it. I'm trying to determine whether or not the provisions

that the Attorney General explained, with which I think I agree, reflect

themselves in the practical day-to-day life of somebody who has the job of

communicating a particular position on behalf of an organization as an in-house

lobbyist, which is my personal background.

When I

looked through

section 4(1)(

g) and now the amendment to (f), it wasn't clear to

me which undertaking would be referred to in the requirement to file a return.

Going back to

section 3, if I may,

section 3(2) says that only one return needs

to be filed under subsection (1) for each undertaking even though the consultant

lobbyist may, in connection with the undertaking, communicate with one or more

public office holders.

My point

was that in any lobbying activity, which tends to take place over a period of

time that would at least match and probably exceed the annual filing required

for in-house lobbyists, there is a likelihood that the name of the ministry

which I had filed with the registrar with good intentions on day one of that

period may be quite different from my actual experience on day 365. So, I want

to be assured that it is not the intent of this bill that the flexibility which

a lobbyist needs to conduct his or her trade would put that person afoul of the

law. That's my major concern.

Hon. G.

Plant: I think I can give the member that assurance. This registry is not

intended as a vehicle for requiring lobbyists to keep track of name changes of

ministries. I think in the former government there was a one-year period where

some ministries changed names significantly three times. I think that the

registrar, seeing that a registration was made in respect of attempts to lobby

the Ministry of Human Resources on a date when that was the name of the

ministry…. If the registration is still active in a meaningful sense a year

later when the ministry has changed names twice, I don't think there's going to

be any attempt to be punitive about this.

[1515]

If the

member looks ahead at

section 5, you'll see that the obligation on those who

submit documents is to certify that to the best of the individual's knowledge

and belief, the information contained in the document is true. I don't think

there's a standard of unbelievable perfection that is going to be applied in

that context.

Hunter: I think that the Attorney General's explanation of the intent is

clear. The record shows that is the intent. I think that's helpful.

I did have

another point with respect to the time period within which an in-house lobbyist

who ceases to be an employee,

section 4(4) of the bill, the 30-day requirement

to file changes with the registrar…. Again, based on my own experience as a

lobbyist, when the organization for which I worked terminated, there was,

frankly, nobody left in the organization to file the record. I'm not suggesting

for a moment that records not be required to be filed, but it just appeared to

me that a 30-day period, when organizations might be changing or when employees

change, is somewhat restrictive.

[ Page 699 ]

I'm not

quite sure I understand how important, how critical, a 30-day period might be. It

just seems to me that in terms of businesses meeting the intent, the spirit and

the letter of the law, a period of perhaps 60 days might be a little more

appropriate, given that we are trying to be business friendly. I don't think the

Attorney General is intending to have this bill impose another requirement on a

company that is really — again, if I'm wrong, please correct me, Attorney

General — not a critical provision. I just think it's a little punitive.

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the question. I think that in some circumstances, where

an individual named in a return ceases to be an employee of an employer, there

will probably be a new name filed on the registry. I don't think it's an overly

onerous burden to require the employer to make sure that the record is kept up

to date.

I will say

that's at least a legitimate question and an issue that ought to be monitored. I

think that the focus of the act, in terms of the public policy objectives here,

is more likely to be on the startup date of relationships and the startup date

of undertakings to know who has gotten underway on projects. There would

probably be a little bit less attention placed on the issue of the timeliness of

the kinds of requirements that are included in

section 4(4). That isn't to say

that they're not there. They'll become the law, as the law is written.

We're going

to spend some time over the fall and winter developing the regulations that go

along with this. I invite the member to participate with his views on that. We

can look at that issue as we develop the practices and protocols that will go

along with it. I will certainly welcome the member's continuing input on that

specific issue, and we'll look at it.

Section 4

as amended approved.

Sections 5

to 16 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:20 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20,

the Lobbyists Registration Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 20,

Lobbyists Registration Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 22.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND

FAIR WAGE REPEAL ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:24 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: This is the time that I want to explore with the minister some

thoughts I put to him for his consideration during second reading, which was not

throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He may recall the discussion.

[1525]

One area

that I want to refer to specifically in the legislation that is now being

repealed, the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act — I think it's gone in its

entirety, but I'll ask later about the consequential amendments — is

part 2 of

the bill that's being repealed, called project requirements. What it says is:

"Subject to subsection (2), all employees of the contractor, subcontractor

or any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the

construction to which this Act applies must (

a) be apprentices (

c) hold

credentials, or (

d) hold credentials with an Interprovincial Red Seal,

recognized by the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission…."

And then it goes on.

We know

there is a skills shortage in the province, particularly in the area of trades.

It's a skills shortage in this province that, again, is replicated across the

country. British Columbia had a spotty history about apprenticeship training.

There have been times when governments have pursued apprenticeship training with

a vigour through their role as government or through their role as the

operator of Crown corporations. Then there have been other times when the

government has not pursued apprenticeship training with any vigour whatsoever.

There are

circumstances facing British Columbia that are immediate and of great concern.

The average age of a tradesperson in this province, I think, is approaching 55.

I may be wrong about that, but certainly mid-fifties in age. Within the next

decade the number of tradespeople that will be leaving the workforce consists of

well over half of our trained tradespeople now.

There has

been a lot of effort put into encouraging young people and equity groups to go

into trades training. This was actually one way of really

making employers responsible and encouraging them to train apprentices. This is

the

section I was referring to with the minister earlier this week in second

reading that he shouldn't throw out the

[ Page 700 ]

baby with the bathwater. I'm wondering whether the minister can actually

answer what his plans are for ensuring that trade qualifications are exemplary

on publicly funded projects. What is he doing to ensure that publicly funded

project dollars are going to expand the training of tradespeople?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The hon. member brings up a good point. There is definitely a very

serious concern relative to our skills in the workplace and the fact that there

is a need for a good, comprehensive apprenticeship program. I don't

believe the way that it was envisioned here in fact got us the results that we

were hopeful for or that the former government was hopeful for. From my

standpoint and the standpoint of my ministry, I take this

part very, very

seriously and am looking forward to getting, in very short order, on with the

whole aspect of not only public sector but private sector apprenticeship

programs.

Now, this

one here I think provided under this a one-for-one, and I personally don't

believe that's feasible. I also happen to believe that the employers and the

contractors and the like, right across the spectrum, not just relative to the

contractors' part of this…. In all aspects of the workplace it's clearly in

the employer's best interest to have good apprenticeship programs. I don't think

we've really met the test when we've looked at what the output has been by the

dollars that have gone in. I may stand to be corrected on this, but I think,

just in my very preliminary review of federal and provincial dollars, that I've

discovered some half a billion dollars in apprenticeship and skills training

dollars throughout all of the province. I want to be clear on this. These are

federal and provincial dollars and a number of other programs.

[1530]

When I see

that, and I know firsthand the skills training because of members in my own

family going through apprenticeship programs and the requirements that they're

faced with to achieve that end result…. In other instances people may just

say: "I can't afford to do it that way." I believe we need to tackle

it in a different way, and I think that with the proper encouragement by

government and the proper structure put in place, we will find a very serious

uptake by both the public sector and the private sector in training people.

Clearly, as

this economy starts to take off — and it will — we are going to have to be

very cognizant of the fact that we need skilled, trained people in our economy

here in British Columbia. Although I don't have a one-two-three to provide to

you here right now, I can tell you with all earnestness that I am working on it.

MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I think that one of the areas

— and there were others — where the Business Council of B.C. really excelled

was in their approach to education, both post-secondary and apprenticeship and

technical trades training. The Business Council of B.C. was well aware of the

need for trades and technical training, and they had some very good thoughts on

how to proceed in pursuing that both in the public sector and in the private

sector. So, firstly, I would encourage the minister to continue to work with the

Business Council of B.C. on that.

Secondly,

the minister has an excellent group of people in the Industry Training and

Apprenticeship Commission. The government may wish to make changes in terms of

appointments, but it is a group assigned specifically to deal with the issue of

apprenticeship and technical training. Whether the minister's thoughts prove

right in terms of the investment not paying off well — whether there's a more

efficient use of dollars — I wait. I don't in any way suggest that he could be

wrong in that area, but I do know that the group ITAC, for short, has been

examining the changing nature of work and how that should affect trades training

and technical training as well.

There's

also a role for the Minister of Advanced Education, who I assume still shares

responsibility with the Minister of Labour for trades training. I don't know

whether there's been any change in that area. I also think there's a huge role

for the minister responsible for K-to-12 education. In my own

neighbourhood, children have parents who can't immediately afford a

post-secondary education for people graduating from high school, but there has

been a huge increase in the opportunities to start apprenticeship training for

those students in high school. Often what they do is carry on with their

apprenticeship training post K-to-12, and then they use that as a source of

income to get even further post-secondary training.

So I would

ask the minister for his comments on who he is consulting with in terms of his

own executive council for addressing the issue of apprenticeship training. I

would also ask the minister what…. I assume, because there's no consequential

amendment to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act, that it is status

quo.

Hon. G.

Bruce: In respect to ITAC, if that's sort of what we're talking about in

that regard, it is under core review. I'm looking at that from a number of

different points of view — the output, what we've achieved. I think the point

of ITAC in its first formation certainly had all the right ingredients. I'm not

so sure that even all of those that are part of ITAC right now would hold fast,

that through the process they've achieved the results they wished to achieve.

But through

ITAC, which sits there today as a group, I have had some discussions with

members of the board on ITAC. They're aware of my interests in trying to improve

the situation. Whether ITAC remains ITAC or whether it changes or formulates

differently, I can't answer that right now. It is under core review.

[1535]

The bottom

line is the fact that as a responsibility invested in this ministry for the

apprenticeship program and skills development, it is clearly something that

requires attention by government, and there may be two or three different ways

in which to deliver it. ITAC may be able to be modified in such a

[ Page 701 ]

form or reshaped in a way that we get greater outputs or it's broader in its

application, and then again, it may not be. It's still too early for me to be

able to report back on that.

It isn't

just simply a question of ITAC is gone. That's not what I'm looking at. But it

is truly under review from the standpoint that we want to get the

apprenticeships up in the province of British Columbia.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could also just enlighten me about the

involvement of the Ministry of Education in apprenticeship. Is that remaining

status quo?

Hon. G.

Bruce: At this point, yes, the Ministry of Advanced Education is still

involved with ITAC. Whether or not we decide that should be jointly handled by

ministries or whether it should just be placed in one ministry and carried on

with…. That's part of what we're looking at too. I've had some conversations

with members of the board as to whether they see that as beneficial, and the

jury, if you like, is still out on that one at this point.

MacPhail: And K-to-12?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think the member opposite brings up a good point. There's room,

definitely, for exploratory work in that regard. I think for a while we kind of

were encouraging and thinking that everybody who went through grade 12 would end

up in a high-tech industry. Suddenly we don't have the people who really know

how to run a bulldozer or a grader, who've got the eye to do the job, and there

are skills that we truly, truly need.

I'm only

talking there about one particular sector. I could go into small retail; I could

go into good deli managers and good produce managers and all the like, which are

very, very important. More of that can be achieved through the upper end of

K-to-12 and the grades 10 to 12 area of job training through small business as

well. I think there's a true appetite in respect of the employers' interest to

achieve something along those lines. There's definitely an incredible need, and

I think there are ways that we could certainly involve, in some of that regard,

the smaller business sector or the retail side as well, in which there are some

definite skill shortages.

MacPhail: Yes, I agree. In fact, that is some of the work that ITAC was

doing: expanding trades and technical training to be certified in exactly the

areas that the minister raises — the retail side, the tourism side, the

hospitality industry. Certainly in the food industry, as well, there's a great

necessity for trades and technical training and certification.

I leave the

minister with this, though. With the repeal of this act, I'm not sure what the

government's responsibility is for the provision of apprenticeships, of using

public dollars to provide for apprenticeship. Believe you me, I know how

difficult it is to get Crown corporations to provide apprenticeship programs.

Actually,

the Social Credit government had an excellent program in place in the late

the mid-eighties and was never restored.

There is

much work to be done. But with the removal of this, the link is removed from

expenditure of tax dollars and apprenticeship and technical training.

I will take

the minister's word that this is a high priority for him, and I would encourage

him to work broadly with all interests, both employers and people who are being

trained as well as their bargaining agents, to try to become the leader in the

area of apprenticeship and technical training.

[1540]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd like to assure the member opposite that it's my intent that we

work with all parties — union, non-union, big business, small business,

medium-sized and the employee group itself — in bringing about a much more

highly trained and skilled group of people in the province. It is in everybody's

best interests that we achieve that result.

MacPhail: I have another question on the repeal of the act. It's under

part

3. Enforcement will be repealed because there's nothing to enforce in terms of

the collection of fair wages. But there are staff that are responsible for the

enforcement of this act, who are, I think, currently employed in the employment

standards branch. What is their future?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Some of the folks move on through attrition. Many will be redeployed,

just as we were talking about in another act in regards to certification and

decertification and the requirements of votes. I don't foresee a huge disruption

of people's personal lives in that instance.

MacPhail: So do construction workers or trades workers now become subject to

the law of the LRB and the employment standards branch?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Just as it's always been, the laws of the land will apply.

MacPhail: The other concern I have — I just put it for the minister's

consideration; it doesn't even actually require a reply unless he wishes — is

in the area of health and safety. A large part of the apprenticeship training on

a worksite is really about training workers how to be safe. My understanding is

that the enforcement aspect of the Fair Wage Act, through specially assigned

officers of the employment standards branch, often brought to the attention of

an employer health and safety issues that needed to be corrected as well. I only

bring that to the minister's attention.

I expect

there's going to be a review of WCB, as well, someday under this government. I'm

just waiting for the announcement. I would urge the minister to pay particular

attention to the construction industry,

[ Page 702 ]

knowing now that what was an unintended but very positive consequence of the

Fair Wage Act is now gone in terms of the enforcement of proper health and

safety on a worksite.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I just need explanation for sections 2 and 3, which are

consequential amendments, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is a consequential amendment under the Drainage, Ditch and Dike

Act. It included in there that the determination of the lowest bidder under

subsection (1) is subject to the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. Of

course, if the act were no longer in effect, that would have to be removed.

That's the case in both instances.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, we'll pass that, and then I'll ask the next one.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain

section 3. Is it the same?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes, it's the same only because it applies to a different act. This

is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act — under

(5) "subsection (4) does not apply to a case where the minister does not let

the work to the lowest bidder because the lowest bidder fails to comply with the

Skills Development and Fair Wage Act." Again, it's clarification.

Section 3

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I think this is straightforward, but are there any contracts that

the minister may think would be in a fuzzy area pursuant to

section 4?

[1545]

Hon. G.

Bruce: All those contracts that have been already awarded — they're about

ready to go, and they've been awarded; they've been properly tendered, and the

tender's closed; they went through the tendering process and selected a contract

and then awarded that — will carry on. Anything before that will be

re-tendered.

Sections 4

and 5 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22,

Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Bruce moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175