Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 17

Part 1

[ Page 4035 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask the House to join me in a tribute to Stanley Knowles. Mr. Knowles was a United Church minister whose political ideas were forged by the Depression. He never forgot those experiences nor why he came to Parliament in 1942, which was, of course, primarily to fight for social justice and particularly to fight for the establishment of a pension plan for seniors in Canada. He took the view that his constituents were not just those who lived within the boundaries of Winnipeg North Centre, but also pensioners, veterans and people in need right across Canada.

His experience in the thirties caused him to move from the pulpit into politics. His life's work was to achieve greater equality amongst the people of Canada and to solve some of the problems people faced.

He had survived four elections and served most conscientiously in four parliaments before the event occurred which made him a major figure in Canadian parliamentary history -- the pipeline debate. I know the Clerks are listening with rapt attention, because it was Mr. Knowles's encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, and the ingenuity to use them, that drove the Liberal government of the day to defeat.

He was three times offered the speakership of the House of Commons and turned it down because he felt it would have cut him off from his party and from the struggle for social justice. Mr. Knowles's conception of social justice was dynamic. Under the pressure of world crises, he moved away from his early commitment to pacifism and acknowledged that peace sometimes requires the use of force. The Canadian veteran never found a firmer friend than this man of peace who never bore arms.

Mr. Knowles was 40 years a parliamentarian and was later made an officer of Parliament. He was truly one of Canada's most distinguished parliamentarians, and we will miss him greatly.

G. Campbell: I rise to join with the Premier in his acknowledgment of the passing of a legend, the man from Winnipeg North Centre, the conscience of the Commons.

Stanley Howard Knowles has been called many things. He received many awards and was accorded many accolades. But the truth is that his greatest achievement was not bestowed by some organization or some institution. It was bestowed by Canadians who gave him the label that everyone strives for: they called him a great Canadian. It was the people who accorded him that label, and they did that because he always understood how important our democratic institutions were, and he always stood on the side of our democratic institutions -- nearly 40 years of elected work for the people of Winnipeg North Centre, the people of Manitoba and the people of this country.

Mr. Knowles belonged to the CCF and then the NDP, but his work was on behalf of all the people, not of a party. He was the master of parliamentary procedure, and for this he earned the respect of parliamentarians everywhere. But it was procedure for a purpose. It was hard work and attention to detail that made him the best-known and best-loved opposition MP in Ottawa. This Legislature, I know, will recognize his work, his honesty, and his unfailing courtesy and decency as the hallmarks of what we should be striving for in this chamber. Indeed, it's what all legislative chambers should be striving for.

He struggled for years against multiple sclerosis, and he was subjected to a massive stroke. Yet he soldiered on in his work, with great good humour and with unflagging effort. Today all Canadians mourn his passing. We mourn the loss of a decent man who put service above self -- the best interests of us all above mere political or partisan purpose.

You will hear people say of him that his passing marks the end of an era. Let us hope, as he would hope, that that is not true. If his passing marks the end of an era, it would mean we mark the passing of hard work and social consciousness and dedication to democratic principles. He would not want that, and neither should we. Let us say instead that we in this chamber honour his work, his passion, his decency, his life. Let Stanley Knowles serve as the standard to which we all aspire, not the light that has forever fled. Let us honour him by striving to achieve in what ways we can the greatness he believed resides within us all and within our democratic institutions.

I. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House might permit me a minute to say something, after the very generous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the remarks of the Premier.

I served in the House of Commons with Stanley Knowles. He was my House Leader for six years in three parliaments. I was there when he had his stroke, and he continued on. He was a giant of a parliamentarian.

I know the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill wants to say some things today, as well. Here she comes, as a matter of fact; I'll let her speak for herself.

I try to capture the essence of a person. This morning when I heard of Stanley's death, I looked around my kitchen, and there was a book, Recipes From the Hill -- the favourite meals from the members of the House of Commons. We were asked to put our recipes -- our favourite meals -- in there. There are some pretty fancy recipes. What was Stanley's? Stanley's was: "I like a good cup of tea." And he described in great detail how to make a good cup of tea, because the member for Winnipeg North Centre knew detail.

Every afternoon about 3:30 he would have a cup of tea and an arrowroot biscuit with his secretary, and they'd talk about things. He'd then spend the rest of the day disciplining his young caucus, like myself and some of the other people, and teaching us the rules of parliament and how to respect parliament -- how to fight for things, but how to respect parliament. So when I think of Stanley, I think of a cup of tea and how we called him lean and humane, I think it was.

He got the Canada Pension Plan with the Liberal government of the day; medicare -- he and Tommy -- with the Liberal government of the day. He fought for every increase in the old age pension after the war. He took J.S. Woodsworth's seat in 1942. That was the year I was born, and I still had the privilege to . . . . He took the seat in '42 and served constantly since then.

When you think about it, a cup of tea and the Canada Pension Plan, medicare, old age pension, veterans' pensions -- that's a great career, and we should all remember and pay tribute to Stanley Knowles.

G. Brewin: I promise I won't say a lot, although I can.

Stanley Knowles came to my parents' house in 1942 to stay for one session to help the Mann family make up a shortfall in their budget -- I know about things like that -- and he stayed 38 years. He was a part of my family upbringing

[ Page 4036 ]

and my growing up. He liked a cup of tea, and if I could add to that, he might well have wanted to have a recipe about making porridge, because that was the other thing I learned a lot about around our breakfast table as we ate our porridge and our boiled eggs, and talked politics and listened to the news. That was breakfast at the Mann household for many, many, many years.

Stanley was a workaholic. He went to work on the bus, in the early days, from the west end of Ottawa to downtown. He left at 8:30 in the morning and got home at 11 o'clock at night, and he did that six days a week. In those days airplanes didn't fly MPs back and forth quite so readily as they do now, so it was the train. He would come, as all MPs did, and stay for quite a long while.

[2:15]

There are so many attributes to Stanley, but one of the important parts, I think, is the legacy that he leaves to our country, to social democracy -- a legacy that was born from his own very humble beginnings in Los Angeles and from his own decision, a lone decision, to come to Canada and settle in Winnipeg in his late teens, and then moving from there into the ministry and the social gospel movement across the west of Canada.

Tommy Douglas was part of that, and so were many other famous Canadians, some of whom stayed in the church and others who moved into the more secular side of our social democracy and our Canadian society. But his legacy is very much social democracy, as other members have mentioned here.

We will remember him for that, but also for his interest and devotion to Parliament, to the traditions of Parliament and to the importance of Parliament as a form of discourse for solving and working through the issues of the day for a society. He was asked to be the Speaker back in 1957 and turned it down, because it would be hard on his social democratic voice to be in that position, as I know the Speaker knows well in our day.

He would have been 89 in a week. He lived a long and full life, and he gave much to this country. We will indeed miss him, but we celebrate that life.

The Speaker: Thank you, members on both sides, very much.

Hon. J. Cashore: In my capacity as Minister of Labour, I wish to introduce a distinguished guest from Cuba: a labour representative, Mr. Sergio Laradegoitia. He is accompanied by Jim Lamb of CUPE, a national representative, and a translator, Jim Raeder. Sergio is visiting various MLAs and talking about labour relations here in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Weisgerber: It is my pleasure today to introduce a friend and a constituent, Mr. Dale Phillips, who is a successful businessman from Chetwynd. He is president of the recently chartered Rotary Club in Chetwynd, and he's the son of Don "Leather Lungs" Phillips, who represented my constituency very ably and very vocally for many years in this chamber. I hope everyone here will give a very warm welcome to a fine individual, Mr. Dale Phillips.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today in the House I want to introduce two families who are here to support the need to change the law regarding high-speed chases involving emergency vehicles: Inga and Bruce Thompson and their son Bjorn, the parents and brother of Erik Thompson; and Carol and Gordon Bartusek, the parents of Crystal Bartusek. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

J. Wilson: Seated in the gallery today are some very special students: Dawn Clements, Kimberley Patrick, Mikol Golob, Jessie James and Morgan Moxley. They have travelled to Victoria all the way from Nazko Valley Elementary School in my riding of Cariboo North. These grade 7 students are accompanied by their teacher Dan Kishkan and his assistant, Mrs. Tracey Moxley. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

R. Kasper: Today visiting us in the gallery and the precincts are students and teachers from the Sooke Christian School. May the House please make them welcome.

Also, I'd like the House to join me in congratulating a staffperson from the legislative comptroller's office, Maureen Olson, the manager of accounting operations, who looks after all members' interests very well. On Saturday she had a baby girl, 7 pounds 1 ounce, called Kristen Adele Olson.

C. Clark: My mother has begged me not to introduce her today, but for once I won't do what I'm told. I'll ask the House to please make my mother Mavis Clark welcome today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is Dr. Bernie Sheehan. Dr. Sheehan has had a distinguished career in universities in this province and in other provinces in our country. Currently he serves as president of the Technical University of British Columbia. I'd ask all members to make him welcome on this good day for post-secondary education in British Columbia.

E. Gillespie: Joining us today we have 55 grades 11 and 12 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher Mr. G. Horn. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: For my friend Jo Brown and her husband Tom, it's been 17 years since they took a trip without their children. I find it most amazing that Jo would decide to take this experience and actually visit us at question period. Jo is a member of the Columbia Basin Trust and a citizen whose activities are prerequisites to keeping southeastern B.C. in one piece. Would the House please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997. The government is very concerned about innocent third parties who have suffered serious injury or death as a result of high-speed pursuits.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will increase protection to the public by giving the province the authority to establish standard regulations for both municipal police and RCMP regarding high-speed pursuits. The regulations will provide guidelines as to when police may engage in high-speed

[ Page 4037 ]

pursuits, when such pursuits should be terminated and the use of emergency equipment during pursuits. In that regard, we are consulting with chiefs of police to craft these regulations.

Clearly there are many situations wherein a high-speed pursuit is not justified, specifically when the danger to the public outweighs the gravity of the offence. These amendments will minimize the occurrence of high-speed pursuits in the province and will provide a balance between law enforcement and protection of the public.

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Technical University of British Columbia Act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This act establishes the Technical University of British Columbia as a degree-granting institution to provide improved post-secondary access in the Fraser Valley, and to provide the knowledge and skills that all British Columbians need to succeed in the global economy.

The act sets out the purposes of the university and its governance structure.

The purposes of the university, as set out in this legislation, include: to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in applied technology and related professional fields; to conduct applied research and development; to provide continuing education that responds to the needs of the applied technologists and related professional fields; to collaborate and cooperate with other post-secondary institutions, business and labour with respect to education and applied research and development; and to create strong links with business and labour and to develop programs that are relevant to and at the forefront of industrial and professional initiative.

The act provides for a corporate governance model to enable the university to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs. It includes a board of governors, a president, who is chief executive officer of the university, and a university council. The board of governors and the president will have the duties and powers of the board of governors and the senate under the University Act. The president will consult with the university council on specified academic matters.

The act also establishes program advisory committees for each program area, which will make recommendations to the head of the program area. Included in this legislation are consequential amendments to eight other acts.

Bill 30 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.

Oral Questions

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

C. Hansen: It's now early June, and thousands of B.C. students have hit the streets looking for work. However, the job stats that were released on Friday are not very encouraging. StatsCan said that in the past year, under the leadership of this Premier, youth unemployment has increased from 14.1 percent to just under 16 percent. But this didn't stop the Premier from hosting a glitzy press conference on Friday to announce 100 subsidized jobs at ICBC. We see that that announcement has more to do with public relations hype than fundamentally addressing the problem of youth unemployment.

How can the Premier justify wasting valuable dollars on glitzy media events, when there are over 50,000 young British Columbians seeking work?

Hon. G. Clark: I say shame on that member for criticizing ICBC.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Standing up in this House and attacking 100 good jobs for students at ICBC, to promote safety and awareness, is simply cheap politics.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can we have order members, please, so that we might hear the answer.

Hon. G. Clark: We have A Guarantee for Youth in this province, which is the most ambitious job creation program for young people that B.C. has ever seen. We've increased funding for Student Summer Works, and I hope members opposite will support that. We've increased funding for environmental youth teams -- some $10 million to invest -- to hire young people, to train them, and to work and invest in the environment.

We've challenged our Crown corporations to be good corporate citizens and create over 2,000 jobs. ICBC -- and I was proud to be there -- is doing their part by hiring young people to promote safety and to prevent accidents. By the way, if hon. members don't already know, young people have more accidents than everybody else. In fact, 20 percent of young people have accidents in the first year in which they have a licence. They're doing their part . . . .

On Saturday, I announced the youth business and entrepreneurship training program to help young people start their own businesses. We have a comprehensive program for youth employment. No province in Canada can match what this government has done in promoting youth and employment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: May I just advise members that I do not require assistance in enforcing the rules of order, and remind them also that if a question is open-ended . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I would suggest that you don't make those comments.

. . . then clearly the answer has to be allowed some latitude.

C. Hansen: The Premier says that I'm attacking the 100 youth that got jobs at ICBC. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm attacking this government's record of creating an

[ Page 4038 ]

environment where there are 7,000 more unemployed youth in this province today than when he anointed himself Minister Responsible for Youth in this province. And I'm attacking the fact that this Premier, as Minister Responsible for Youth, is more concerned about public relations hype than he is about addressing the fundamental problem of youth unemployment.

I would like to ask the Premier how he can claim that his record as Minister Responsible for Youth is anything but a dismal failure, when we have 7,000 more young British Columbians unemployed today than there were a year ago.

[2:30]

Hon. G. Clark: The average level of employment amongst B.C. youth was up 5,400 jobs during January to May of 1997, while it was down 58,800 jobs in the rest of the country. We're outperforming the rest of the country in terms of youth employment, and that's a direct result of government policies.

I have no hesitation in saying that youth unemployment is too high in British Columbia. We're doing better than anywhere else in Canada, but not good enough. We have to do more. That's why our government engaged in the significant job creation program that we have. Instead of complaining about it, those members opposite should be supporting this government, which has the most ambitious youth job creation program in B.C.'s history.

C. Hansen: This Premier needs some update in the stats that he's using, because this province now has one of the worst employment records in Canada. There are 18,000 fewer jobs in this province than six months ago. I would like to ask the Premier what he is doing to address the fundamental causes of the increase in youth unemployment in this province, besides holding glitzy press conferences.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's pathetic. Listen to the members opposite . . . . Nobody else in the country has frozen tuition fees for the second year in a row. I ask members opposite to support us. That Liberal Party that campaigned for massive cuts to post-secondary education . . . . We've increased funding and frozen tuition fees, while they stand there and whine. Ours is the only province in Canada that has A Guarantee for Youth, which is a comprehensive youth employment strategy. Where are the opposition, other than standing up and attacking us for having a press conference announcing 100 new jobs at ICBC?

Our Crown corporations are being good corporate citizens. Every ministry in government has been challenged to work on youth employment. We have environmental youth teams; we have Summer Works. And yes, we need to do more. We intend to do more. And I'd ask members opposite, instead of complaining about it, to work with the government for a change, to promote young people and what they have to offer in this province.

B. Penner: This government certainly has been successful in creating jobs -- in Alberta. Alberta's unemployment rate is now at 5.8 percent, while our youth unemployment rate in B.C. is at 16 percent. That's shameful. There are over 50,000 young people in B.C. who are unemployed. This government promised help during the last election but since then has delivered nothing but hype. According to documents received by B.C. Liberals under the Freedom of Information Act, this government has spent $1.5 million on the communications budget . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order! Let's hear the question.

B. Penner: This government has spent $1.5 million since June 1996 on a communications strategy for the Premier's Guarantee for Youth program. Can the Premier tell the House how he can justify spending $1.5 million on a glitzy ad campaign, while there are 50,000 young people in British Columbia looking for work this summer?

Hon. G. Clark: At the second Premier's Youth Forum -- we called it A Voice for Youth -- we had representatives from all across British Columbia. There may even have been a Liberal MLA or two there. They were invited, obviously, to talk about how government could be more responsive to the needs of our young people. The single biggest request we had from young people was that they didn't have the information they needed to access . . . . In fact, a Liberal MLA, whom I can name if members want . . . . Their constituency assistant made inquiries at my Youth Office, asked for more information and said: "Why don't you advertise what you're doing, because . . . ? "

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: That's right. In order to get access to the programs -- environmental youth team programs, the Summer Works program, the You-BET or youth business and entrepreneurship training program -- we have to make sure they are accessible to British Columbia. We have a 1-800 number. We have a web site designed by young people for young people so that they can have access to it. And that's where the money is going -- to make sure that this very ambitious program that this government has pioneered in this country is accessible to young people and to youth in this province.

Again, hon. member, if you talked to your colleagues, you would know that it's important that our young people have access to information so that they can access these excellent programs.

B. Penner: I hardly think that information needs to have the Premier's picture on virtually every page. I've reviewed a copy of the report prepared after the Premier's Youth Forum, and I believe that on more than half the pages there are either quotes or pictures of the Premier in that publicly-paid-for document.

We have a breakdown . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please -- on both sides.

B. Penner: B.C. Liberals have obtained a breakdown of the $1.5 million multimedia information campaign waged by the Premier's Office. Three-quarters of a million dollars was spent on ad placements, more than $300,000 went to ad production and a further $180,000 went to creative development and youth focus-group research.

Can the Premier tell us if the young people in those focus groups were being asked what jobs they were looking for,

[ Page 4039 ]

or if they were asked to help the Premier boost his image and his profile by spending taxpayers' dollars on a glitzy media advertising campaign?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I don't apologize for one minute for listening, for a change, to young people. I don't apologize for the Guarantee for Youth. I don't apologize for the Premier's Youth Forum. For the first time in the history of this province, young people have access to the Premier and to cabinet ministers. We're going to keep doing this each and every year, because our young people are our future. They need the opportunities we had, and we're going to work throughout government to make sure they have those opportunities and access to government information.

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD

(MURPHY CASE)

M. Coell: My question is to the Minister for Children and Families. Tim and Dana Murphy have spent more than $15,000 to date on legal fees, trying to secure a safe home and custody for their foster daughter. When they could not get the answers they needed from the Ministry for Children and Families, they hired private investigators to help them. The Murphys also contacted members of the media for their assistance.

The Child and Family Review Board issued a gag order last week against the Murphys. It states: "It should be a matter of honour and integrity among parties that they put the interests of the child over their selfish concerns or interests." Mr. Speaker, it seems the Murphys were the only ones who have put the interests of the child first in this case.

Does the minister agree that when parents are forced to take matters into their own hands, they should be stifled with a gag order?

Hon. P. Priddy: The Child and Family Review Board, I would remind the member, is not under the auspices of this ministry -- just to make sure that is clear.

I don't think we're talking about gagging or stifling people; we are talking, from the perspective of this ministry, about what is in the best interest of the child.

The Child and Family Review Board is still continuing their investigation. We have given the Child and Family Review Board all of the information we had, including the name of the aboriginal social agency in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan police records, Saskatchewan social services records and our independent assessment. They asked for more information, which we then went back and provided for them. I think we need to wait until the Child and Family Review Board has finished their report and commented.

M. Coell: The Murphys have jumped through legal and bureaucratic hoops for the simple goal of securing a safe home for their foster daughter. The Child and Family Review Board has now stated that those steps they took are inappropriate and that a heavy hand is required in response.

Will the minister admit that if it weren't for the Murphys' questioning of the ministry's decisions, this little girl would probably -- and could potentially -- be in a dangerous situation in Saskatchewan?

B.C. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

D. Symons: The auditor general's report on B.C. Transit released last week says that Transit spends over $8 million a year to cover bus driver absenteeism. However, through freedom of information, B.C. Liberals have obtained a copy of this year's Transit estimates briefing notes on absenteeism. In it B.C. Transit pegs absenteeism as costing $15 million annually.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Transit tell the House why B.C. Transit forecasts that absenteeism is costing almost 100 percent more each year than the auditor general's figures show?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The auditor general started his review almost two years ago, and the hon. member is correct: since then it has risen. You're absolutely right: it has gone up. It is now at a record rate of overall absenteeism. Including WCB and long-term disability, it's at a rate of an average of 37 days per year. It's totally unacceptable -- absolutely.

The CEO of the Transit corporation has put in a very tough absenteeism management plan. I would hope that this Liberal opposition, when they get pressure to go against that absenteeism management plan, will stand firm the same way we are and uphold that plan.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: I would like the House to welcome my niece Colleen Chizeck, who lives in Victoria and who has decided to come and watch question period. Welcome, Colleen.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the pleasure to table the 1996 annual report of the provincial health officer: "A Report on the Health of British Columbians."

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT

AND INVESTMENT

On vote 24: minister's office, $374,000.

Hon. D. Miller: Prior to us getting into the questions that arise in estimates, I would like to make some brief statements relative to the operation of the ministry.

First of all, I would like to start by paying respects to two long-term employees of the ministry who passed away earlier this year. So often in this place, in this House, we tend to get

[ Page 4040 ]

disconnected with the thousands of men and women who work for the provincial government and have worked for the government for years and years and done an outstanding job in the field.

One of those individuals, Dave Johnson, served the provincial government for 35 years managing the Charlie Lake office near Fort St. John. Mr. Johnson played a central role in shaping the petroleum and natural gas industry in British Columbia. The industry was in its infancy when Dave joined the then Ministry of Mines in 1961. During his tenure, the industry expanded from a modest beginning of a few hundred wells in the Fort St. John area to over 10,000 wells drilled, mostly in northeast B.C. Because of the size of the province and the remoteness of drilling locations, Mr.

Johnson exercised his duties with considerable independence and responsibility. Under his guidance, the industry established an excellent track record for safety and environmental protection. Mr. Johnson was known by both the industry and the community for his ability to combine technical excellence with fairness and firmness. Dave was deeply respected and valued by his colleagues in the ministry, as well as by the oil and gas industry and other agencies. He will be sadly missed by all who know him, and I do pay my respects to his family.

And to Tony Milligan. To many of us in government and many others in the mining and consultant industries, Mr. Milligan was the grandfather of reclamation in British Columbia. In the early 1970s reclamation was just beginning, and Tony and his crew at Kaiser Resources led the way in the practical application of reclamation technology, proving to all of us that large-scale open-pit mining could be reclaimed to a very high standard. This pioneering work was undoubtedly responsible for the continued expansion of the mining industry in British Columbia.

Tony and the crew at Kaiser also won the annual mine reclamation award for four of the first seven years it was presented. Tony was well respected by his colleagues in the ministry, as well as by the mining industry and other agencies. I know that ministry staff have many wonderful stories and fond memories from the time spent working with him. There are few individuals who by their consistent honesty and integrity can easily move from industry to government, use the same approach and philosophy, and be as successful as Tony. Our deepest condolences, as I said, to both the Johnson and the Milligan families.

Turning now to the estimates. The voted appropriations, as I have indicated . . . . The first one is the minister's office, vote 24; 25 is ministry operations; 26 is the Crown corporations secretariat; vote 27 is the Information, Science and Technology Agency; and vote 28 is resource revenue-sharing agreements. Total voted expenditure is $161.9 million -- $162 million. That does include the $45 million investment that we're making to assist in developing the Kemess mine and related developments.

And if we extract the $45 million, the total vote expenditure for the ministry for this fiscal year is 24 percent less than the previous year. Therefore, given the total estimates of expenditure -- there were some of the special funds, Build B.C., etc. -- we're talking about a $164 million ministry.

It does allow us to carry out our mandate, and I want to pay some tribute to the staff who have had to deal with reductions and still carry out the mandate of the ministry. I'd also like to point out that on the revenue side, the ministry collects $400 million in revenues from the mineral and the petroleum and natural gas sectors, and this does not include corporation income tax, property tax and other fees.

The ministry carries out its mandate by developing sectoral trade opportunities; fostering international and domestic private sector investment; facilitating and coordinating strategic public sector capital investments; working with the public sector in its economic development responsibilities; ensuring that the province's energy and mineral resources are managed for the benefit of British Columbians and that the Crown receives its fair share of the revenues generated by petroleum and mining activities in the province; and encouraging the revitalization of traditional industries.

We also work with the Crown corporations secretariat and various Crown corporations to create an environment conducive to the province's economic and social development. There are six Crowns in my portfolio: the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, the B.C. Railway Group of Companies, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, Victoria Line Ltd. -- which is on the way out -- and the B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation.

The Crown corporations, the ones I've mentioned, through their unique mandates and approaches are also working hard to sustain economic development and business growth in the province. For instance, they are providing both longer-term and summer employment and training opportunities for young people through the Crown youth employment initiative -- which was criticized earlier today in question period -- which comes under, as the Premier indicated, the broader umbrella of the Guarantee for Youth.

During this debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, I will discuss the work of the Crown corporations, boards and commissions that are in my portfolio. I also have the Information, Science and Technology Agency in my portfolio, a very critical part of the growing economic sector in our province. Other boards and commission included are: the B.C. Gaming Commission, the B.C. Racing Commission, the Asia Pacific Foundation, the Job Protection Commission, the International Financial Centre, the Science Council of B.C., the Mediation and Arbitration Board and the Mineral Tax Review Board. This is a pretty big portfolio . . . as my colleague acknowledges.

A measure of the Ministry of Employment and Investment's success in implementing its mandate is the number of jobs created and protected each year. In fact, with the sequence of questions in question period, it's interesting to note that while no one is ever satisfied -- and I will certainly never be satisfied as long as there is an unemployment rate . . . . It is interesting, for those who somehow try to belittle British Columbia's success over the last number of years, to look at some basic statistics that indicate to me that we're on the right track.

In other words, if you look at the growth of the working-age population as a percentage over the last five years, in the rest of Canada it was 6.8 percent; in British Columbia it was 15.2 percent. So that statistic alone should make people understand the enormity of the challenge facing British Columbia. We are indeed unique as a Canadian province. Imagine that: 6.8 percent growth of the working-age population -- 15 and over -- in the rest of Canada, and 15 percent in B.C.

Happily, if you look at the pace of job creation over that same period of time, the average in the rest of Canada is 7.7 percent, and in British Columbia it's 12.8 percent.

I think we require massive efforts to keep pace. It's clear, at least on a statistical basis, that our efforts at job creation have been very, very good. Is it enough? No, it's not. Do we have more plans to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs? Yes, we do. But we'll no doubt get into that here and in other forums.

So as I've indicated, there are more than 200,000 new jobs. We've seen a decline in the public sector, and I think some

[ Page 4041 ]

people say that's good. Clearly we have to be efficient as a government. We are working through job protection. We have an enormous problem in the northwest part of the province as we speak. That's a situation of a company formerly known as Repap, now known as Skeena Cellulose Inc. That company essentially failed the market test as a Canadian company, was forced to sell by its creditors and, as all too often is the case, government was called upon to provide support to try to mitigate the impact on communities and workers. We are engaged in that in a significant way, but perhaps we can discuss that again in estimates.

We played a leading role with respect to the restructuring of Canadian Airlines -- 12,000 direct and indirect jobs in British Columbia. We thought that was very, very important. The Premier took a leading role in that. It looks as though that company has gone through that very critical period and is on the way up. We worked very hard in my ministry, in the Job Protection Commission and with the Premier's assistance, to develop a restructuring plan for Evans Forest Products, the single employer in the town of Golden, and that has proven to be successful. So there are some success stories.

There are obviously some economic problem areas in the province, but to a large degree, both on the job creation side and in working with the private sector when they do run into difficulties, I think we have done a commendable job. In fact, the Job Protection Commission, since its inception in '91, has handled more than 860 inquiries and 375 projects/cases and has saved about 11,000 jobs. So that's a very constructive role that they're playing.

I'll leave it at that for now. There are other more discrete parts of the ministry. I assume we're going to take this in some sort of staged process, starting with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So with that, I'll take my seat and look forward with interest to the questions being asked.

C. Hansen: I too want to join the minister in paying tribute to individuals in the ministry who have served this province so ably. Certainly the minister spoke very eloquently about the two individuals who passed away in the past year, and I would like to add my respects and my support for his comments in that regard.

I've had the pleasure in the last year of working with many of the officials in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I must say that I find I am in awe of many of those individuals, who I think are serving this province very, very well. The interactions that I've had with officials in the ministry have always been a pleasure.

As we proceed with these estimates, I'm very anxious that we use the time of officials as efficiently as possible. I know that this is a complex ministry, especially when we get into the Crown corporations. There are certainly many branches in this ministry; there are three deputy ministers that report to this minister. As we go through this process, I'm very anxious to ensure that the time of those officials is used as effectively as possible.

Therefore I hope that we will have a good sense of cooperation on both sides of the House, so that we can ensure that officials are called on in a timely manner when we need their expertise and their backup information. Certainly we will do everything we on this side of the House can to facilitate that.

Part of that cooperation was that we had organized a briefing last week with several officials of the ministry at the assistant deputy minister level. I must say it was very brief. It was an introduction to many of the subject areas. We started it out by admitting, too, that we would probably come away with more questions than answers, which was true.

There were several documents that were indicated as being helpful for us as background information, in that having those documents would result in questions for which we could probably read the answers ourselves rather than delaying these estimates for hour on hour on hour while we asked the minister the same questions. Specifically, there were documents that were the business plans of the four primary branches of the ministry. I understand that those business plans could be made available.

Just in opening, my question to the minister is: might we be able to expect copies of those documents before we get too far into these estimates?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the opening remarks from my critic with respect to the speedy passage of estimates.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh -- a misinterpretation. I understand that the documents the member referred to are being sent. You say they haven't been received yet; they're in the process of being sent. And we'll certainly double-check that. It's our desire to make sure you have them.

C. Hansen: These estimates, as we know, come up on very short notice, and as a result . . . . I guess we certainly wouldn't want any suggestion that the estimates be rushed before we have a chance to fully digest what's in those documents. But as I say, I'm sure those documents will do more to answer questions that we have than raise more questions. And as a result of having access to those documents, I'm sure the estimates process will proceed much more quickly than it otherwise might.

Part of my reason for raising this is that we do hope to proceed with an orderly process of examining various aspects of this ministry. We want to start with the overall general operations of the ministry, which includes those four branches. As soon as we have access to those documents, we'll be able to then determine how quickly we can get through this particular stage of the estimates. But I would beg the indulgence of the minister that if the documents . . . . Let me put it this way: if we get the documents quickly, we'll be able to incorporate that, obviously, into our questioning.

Otherwise, we may have to come back to certain things at a later stage. So I hope the minister doesn't feel that we're jumping around, if that's the case. We'll certainly try not to.

The minister mentioned in his opening remarks that there was a decline of 24 percent in the funding for the ministry itself. I am anxious to learn how that affects the ministry's mandate as we knew it last year. Certainly I don't think it's reasonable to expect the ministry to be accomplishing everything that it was accomplishing in past years on a significantly larger budget.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, certainly a budget reduction of that magnitude is not without its challenges. I really want to again acknowledge the work of the people in the ministry, in terms of rising to that. I've been on both sides, you know. As an employee where layoffs occurred, it's not very nice. I've also discovered that it's not very nice to be in charge of an organization where layoffs occur. It's a very difficult time. It's difficult to maintain staff morale and to keep people focused on the job at hand. I think it's even more difficult, quite frankly,

[ Page 4042 ]

in the public sector, because there are those who tend to dismiss public sector workers as somehow simply at the public trough and who don't really show much regard for the individuals -- the real flesh-and-blood individuals -- who are impacted by reductions of the magnitude that this government brought in in this fiscal year.

Notwithstanding that, we have done some work in the divisions. Perhaps I can give some highlights for the minister -- or for the member, the wannabe minister. No disrespect. The science, technology and capital division was eliminated. That portion of the division has been transferred to the Information, Science and Technology Agency, ISTA, to provide a single-window approach to science and technology issues within government. The division's capital budget group -- eight FTEs and $660,000 -- has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

The division's remaining functions -- capital policy, public-private partnerships, infrastructure and program management -- have been transferred to the ministry's new economic development division, formerly policy.

Two ADM-level positions in the ministry were eliminated as a result of these changes: the position of special adviser to the Premier on science and technology and related support staff, as well as the ADM position for the former science, technology and capital division. The former policy division was reduced by half, both budget and FTEs. That is now reconstituted, along with the additional functions noted above, as the economic development division. The division has a budget of $13 million and 58 FTEs.

The B.C. Trade and Investment Office's base budget and FTE complement is reduced by approximately one-third. To achieve those cuts, the BCTIO will be streamlining service delivery internationally, transferring some marketing initiatives to the Ministry of Agriculture, the federal government and Forest Renewal B.C. Sector trade development and investment work in known, identifiable potential growth areas where B.C. demonstrates a comparative advantage -- in other words, becoming more focused, where you can get the most, as they say, bang for your buck . . . .

BCTIO has assumed responsibility for the government's business immigration program. We've made some changes there in terms of trying to get some cost recovery.

APEC received an additional $2 million, bringing the total APEC funding for '97-98 to $3.4 million. We also received an additional ten FTEs for '97-98 to assist with the delivery of APEC.

Energy and minerals division. Again, there were some pretty tough cuts. The geological survey branch budget was reduced by 46 percent. That is a very valuable part of the energy and minerals division in terms of the kind of geotechnical work that's done and then made available to the private sector. Generally, each year that work is displayed at the Cordilleran Roundup, and that leads to quite a staking rush by the private sector. We have done some work there to try to assist in managing the budget reduction.

The remaining areas of the energy and minerals division deal with such issues as health, safety and issuance of title. The enforcement of operational standards were kept intact to sustain resource development and the flow of revenue to the Crown. We will be realizing efficiency savings of some 13 percent without any major restructuring.

Communications division. We're down two FTEs from last year. General administrative efficiency savings of 27 percent have been realized in this division. While the issues management workload for communications has increased significantly, with the addition of the B.C. Gaming Commission, the B.C. Racing Commission, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the Information, Science and Technology Agency, the division did not receive any additional resources.

Revenue and management services division. A corresponding budget in FTE reductions -- nine FTEs -- has been made to reflect staffing reductions elsewhere in the ministry. General administrative efficiency savings of 32 percent have been realized. The ministry's consolidation at 1810 Blanshard has allowed the ministry to realize further staffing and rent savings of $1 million annually. Cuts to the resource revenue branch were minimized to protect revenue collection capabilities.

Obviously, I'm running over the highlights of a number of divisions in the ministry that have incurred some significant budget reductions and staff reductions. To give an illustration of how we are coping with that, we're trying to become more effective with efficiency savings -- more focused.

To date, I don't think there has been any irreparable damage in terms of the ministry's function. In fact, given the issues that we deal with generally, I think that we're continuing to provide very effective leadership -- particularly in the area of potential expansion of our economy -- in a number of significant areas, some of which I can't talk about at this point because they're confidential between private sector companies and the government. Overall, I think we're functioning reasonably well in the face of some pretty deep cuts.

J. Smallwood: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce 50 grade 5 students from Cedar Hills Elementary, accompanied by parents and their teacher. I hope that you're having a very good trip here in Victoria. I hope you enjoy the stimulating debate led by our Minister of Employment and Investment. Would the House make the students welcome.

C. Hansen: I want to turn our attention to job strategy. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of the elements that make up job strategy.

Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to hit some of the issues that I think are important and things that we are trying to focus on as government, in terms of building our economy.

I mentioned the challenge of population. In other words, the population of British Columbia is growing at a much faster rate than the population of other provinces in Canada. I talked about the fact that our working population -- in other words, the people who are out looking for work -- has increased by 15 percent in the province and by just under 7 percent in the rest of Canada. We've always known that we face this particular challenge.

While we know that people coming into our province -- just by their arrival, their spending power and the investments that they make -- contribute to the growth of our economy, that alone is not sufficient. We, like other Canadian provinces -- not all of them, but some of them -- are also very large geographically. The cost of building new highways, of building capacity, is very, very high.

Some of the elements that are fundamental in an economic strategy for British Columbia are, first of all, the stable fiscal foundation. Governments and opposition always quarrel about these issues. You'll have your turn to be critics,

[ Page 4043 ]

but notwithstanding your criticism, part of our fundamental approach is to develop a stable fiscal climate, and that means balancing the budget. We are on track to do that, and I'll leave any further detailed discussion on that to the Minister of Finance. If we were not to do that, the operating deficits that accumulate would simply accumulate as debt. Then we would not be digging ourselves out of a hole.

The second part of our strategy is to look at the population of the province. As we see, British Columbia is still heavily reliant on some commodity products. There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. There is nothing wrong with being lumber manufacturers. There is something wrong if you say that we're going to stop there, and we're not going to go farther up the chain. But there is nothing wrong with being manufacturers of lumber or pulp, or being in the primary industries like mining, because they do bring a lot of wealth back into the province.

We export those commodities; we sell them in the world markets. The money we make comes back into the province -- hopefully, back into reinvestment, creating new opportunities.

As we shift our economy to one that's based more on knowledge-based skills, we think it's important that the population, particularly young people, has the opportunity to get the kinds of skills that are in demand in this new economy. The best example is the knowledge-based sector -- the technology companies. We have some of the world's best technology companies here in British Columbia. Hopefully, we'll get into that when we discuss that part of the ministry. But we have a skill shortage. In other words, there are companies in that field that say that they could hire more people, but they can't find people with the right qualifications.

Earlier today and prior to these estimates, my colleague the Minister of Education tabled a bill on a new technical university. That has been in the planning stages for some time as a fundamental component -- an educational institution that is capable of transferring the kinds of skills that are in demand in that sector to students, as do the very good institutions that we have now -- for example, BCIT and the community college network. The members will be familiar with the Skills Now program that we brought in when I was the minister a couple of years ago.

[3:15]

Again, the focus is on training, on making sure that British Columbians have the opportunity to get the right skills. That is broad-based. It goes from K to 12 -- right through the college-university sector. It includes 20 skills centres, interactive conference centres with boards of business people and workers who can identify their skill shortages and have that kind of training available in their own communities. There is a general emphasis on training and skills development as an essential ingredient -- particularly, but not exclusively, in terms of the growth of the knowledge-based or high-tech sector.

I should also add, going back to the issue of commodities, that the expansion of that sector -- in other words, the fastest-growing part of the forest sector -- is the value-added part, where we're getting into tertiary manufacturing of forest products. Again, we've supported that because we realize more and more that technology will be the prime ingredient that is applied to create these new opportunities. In that respect, we have funded the development of a centre of excellence at the University of British Columbia as a component of the new forest sciences centre at UBC.

That centre of excellence, which really will be comparable to, say, the Rosenheim institute in Germany, will provide people who attend with the kinds of skills that are required if you're going to grow the value-added side of the forest industry. These are, in other words, the particular skills based on marketing, on manufacturing design and flow -- making sure you have efficient operations on uses of wood -- and on all the kinds of particular specialties that are required if you're going to expand the value-added sector.

That, by the way, is not just at UBC. It's linked into our community colleges and now even into our high schools, where for the first time in our history we are developing forest science and applied science programs at the high school level -- linked in, again, to our colleges and universities. We are investing in people, I guess, if I could sum up all that long description.

Thirdly, investing in infrastructure. I talked about our vast geography; I talked about our population growth. These are indeed a real challenge. With the Premier, I had the pleasure this morning of opening the new ferry terminal at Duke Point, just south of Nanaimo, and I think I'll use that for illustrative purposes. The terminal and the eight-kilometre road that connects that terminal to the new Nanaimo Parkway cost us slightly less than $100 million. That's a very expensive project; $100 million is a lot of money.

Now, if you add up all the demands that infrastructure . . . . Infrastructure, as I say, is highways, ferry terminals -- although here, you've got a Crown corporation paying for one part of it -- and the requirement to build new schools, to build new space at our colleges and universities and to continue to have capacity in our hospitals. All those things are what we call infrastructure.

We had been spending well in excess of a billion dollars annually to build this infrastructure, because it was our view that if that infrastructure is not built -- if you have those transportation bottlenecks, if you don't have spaces in post-secondary institutions for students, if you don't have spaces at the K-to-12 level, quite frankly, or if they are impaired . . . . If you don't have these things, then how can you expand your economy?

That, by the way, is not a new idea. That notion of developing infrastructure and investing in infrastructure is as old as the hills. I mean, W.A.C. Bennett was very successful in building this province using that very same philosophy. That's part of another, third component of developing the economy of this province. Again, it has to be affordable, and I know there has been considerable debate about the question of debt.

Perhaps we've not been -- I don't know -- straightforward enough in terms of trying to let people know that debt is real. Debt could be the new schools that are now being built in some communities now. Debt could be the new highway I talked about, which we opened this morning, or the new ferry terminal. All those are debt, but they are investments in British Columbia that allow an expansion of the economy.

The trick, I think, is to make sure that your debt is "affordable." In other words, what's the size of your debt relative to the size of your economy? That's a question I don't think there is a precise answer to. It's interesting to note that at the federal level, I think the debt relative to Canada's GDP is something like 70 percent. Somebody shake their head if I'm wrong, but I think it's somewhere in that neighbourhood. It's interesting to note that the debt that British Columbians have, relative to the size of the British Colombia economy, is about 20 percent. I think that is in fact the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any Canadian province. I think that's true.

So our debt -- while you must keep your eye on it and make sure it continues to be affordable, and that debt has been

[ Page 4044 ]

incurred primarily through the investment in new highways and all the things I talked about -- is affordable. In the short term, it provides a great number of jobs. People are employed constructing new schools, building new highways, new ferry terminals, etc. Those are short-term jobs for the duration of those contracts, but over the longer term, they are investments in our economic future.

There is more. Looking at private sector opportunities, I did mention earlier that we have become partners in a number of initiatives in the province, as a government, through my ministry. A couple of those may be of some interest. There are two new mines under development now: the Huckleberry mine in northern British Columbia and the Kemess mine as well. They, along with Mount Polley, which we're not involved with, are bringing about $650 million in private sector investment into our province.

In terms of direct jobs, they are producing around the 1,500 range, if I recall, and they will provide jobs on an ongoing annual basis and provide economic benefits in terms of spinoff jobs and the taxes paid at the local level, at the provincial level and, yes, at the federal level.

We have recently concluded an agreement, which I think the Liberal member for Richmond has strongly supported, with an aircraft component manufacturing company, Avcorp. It is a commercial arrangement between our government and this private sector company that will see it move to a new location, and we'll see it add about 250 new jobs. We've made a commercial transaction with that company. In other words, we've put the taxpayers' money into that expansion.

We've also added a unique component, and that is $5.5 million of funding through the Ministry of Education, which will flow through the institutions so that the new employees who are required by this specialized company can get the kind of training that's required to make the company an ongoing success. So you can see by those several examples the kind of participation that we're prepared to enter into with the private sector to create new jobs and new opportunities in the province.

There are many more of those kinds of proposals that have come forward to government. Again, the member appreciates that you can't simply talk to every one. It would be irresponsible in a couple of ways. One is that you tend to . . . . If you started talking about them all the time, you would tend to give the impression that they're actually there and that they're real, and I think that's misleading. We prefer to make sure they are going to be real and to have some specific announcements before we start talking about them publicly.

But there are a number of projects that we'll see forthcoming in the hopefully not too distant future, which I'm convinced will produce many more jobs and expansion of our economic base here in British Columbia.

We are also pursuing strategic initiatives. The Premier is very, very focused on the jobs and timber accord -- in other words, working with the private sector on the theory that the resources of this province do belong to the public and trying to set some goals for employment in the forestry sector, for an additional 20,000 jobs.

Some other, not smaller . . . . I wouldn't say smaller at all. We've worked with the film sector. That's a growing sector in our province, and we think it has potential to be much bigger. There are several initiatives there in working with the private sector -- coordinating the unions into a single council, for example, so that when the major producers in Hollywood want to deal with the trade union sector, they have a single point they can contact and reach those agreements.

We've created a number of new apprenticeship opportunities in the film and live theatre sector, again on the premise that if you're going to have people come to British Columbia -- whether it's to film or to stage live productions or whatever it might be -- they've got to know that the kind of skilled people they need to be successful are available here in our province. We've done that, really, right across the piece -- in the airline sector, in film, in live theatre and in the tourism sector.

We've seen a phenomenal increase in the film sector. In my view, we have seen and will continue to see a significant increase in the tourism side. We are working with the fisheries sector now, as well. The Premier has provided outstanding leadership in terms of standing up for British Columbia's position with respect to the fishery -- a very significant industry and one that we think has more potential than it has realized to date.

The Chair: Hon. minister, your time has elapsed on this topic.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, my time is up.

C. Hansen: I enjoyed that presentation by the minister. I think there was some useful information that was brought forward as a result of it. I want to summarize, if I can, the 15-minute presentation that the minister made.

We started out talking about the job strategy and what the elements of a job strategy are. If I followed the minister carefully, which I tried to do, essentially it breaks down into four categories, the first being the stable fiscal foundation, the second being the knowledge base, the third being infrastructure development and the fourth being strategic initiatives. I'm just wondering: is that a fair way of summarizing what the elements of a job strategy are?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, it's not bad. I don't object to that summation. I just say there are other components that we are working on. But perhaps those might unfold as we get through the discrete divisions in the ministry, because there's obviously, trying to sum up all of this into a nutshell . . . . But I think those primary elements are fine.

C. Hansen: We had some discussions about job strategy last year during the estimates process. One of the things that I think has come out since is a document entitled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," February 5, 1997. I was just wondering if the minister felt that this really was, in essence, a document that was driving the policy development process in his ministry.

Hon. D. Miller: I tried to just outline at length some of the policy work that's driving the ministry.

C. Hansen: Part of it is that over the last year we have been looking for a document called a job strategy. We were quite relieved to get this, although it was not a public document. It is a document that we obtained through freedom of information. I was wondering if the minister could tell us: is this a document that has in fact been developed by his ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd have to take a look at it; I do see a lot of paper. I mean, I did outline the primary elements. The member tried to sum them up in his question, and I've confirmed that.

[ Page 4045 ]

So maybe we should deal with and talk about those primary elements, if there are some differences or some questions relative to that.

C. Hansen: It's not my intent to get into a broad, long philosophical debate about the primary elements of a job strategy. Rather, the process that we have before us is one of the accountability of the ministry and the minister for the spending that will take place during this fiscal year. So that's my intention -- rather than on the broad philosophical debate, to try to zero in on spending and spending intentions.

With regard to this "B.C. Jobs Strategy" that's here -- and I may come back to sections of it from time to time during these estimates -- I want to ask the minister where we're at with the development of something called a job strategy work plan.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Miller: There's lots of ongoing work with respect to work plans, etc. I did indicate that there are some initiatives in front of government that we're not, at this point, prepared to talk about. So I really can't give the member an absolute answer with respect to the development of a paper or a process. My job is to get out there and try to make things happen, and we're engaged in that every day.

C. Hansen: The purpose of my questions is really that in a ministry, within those objectives and the broad job strategy as the minister outlined, there obviously have to be some targets that are being worked towards. It's one thing to develop a jobs strategy that is based on the minister's presentation as he gave it to us earlier this afternoon. But is this a strategy that the ministry has developed and that is being executed?

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, really, we're engaged in implementation of the strategy or the elements that I outlined at the outset on a daily basis, with all kinds of sectors. I talked about the forest jobs and timber accord, which is obviously a very active file. When we get into the mining sector, I can talk about some of the issues that we're talking about with the Mining Association of B.C. to create new jobs in British Columbia.

They're ongoing through the Science Council and the ISTA, working with that sector to continue to see that the growth rate, which right now is around 12 percent, not only continues but increases, to add more jobs and opportunities. So we're engaged in that on a daily basis. I don't spend too much of my time looking at paper, you know -- process.

C. Hansen: Before I leave the subject of paper and the process, this document that I have is dated February 5, 1997; it's titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy: Themes and Next Steps." Could the minister tell me if his ministry was involved in developing that document?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd have to see the document. I should say I don't spend a lot of my time reading about process. My job on a daily basis is to get out there and try and create more jobs and work with the private sector and others. I think we've realized some success in that regard.

C. Hansen: In the year that I have had this responsibility as Employment and Investment critic, as I mentioned earlier, I have really tried to determine what a job strategy is. I've heard the minister enunciate it last year, and I've heard him enunciate it more precisely today -- and articulately. I appreciate that. But I would assume that something called a B.C. job strategy -- and I think last year we were promised detail, with achievable goals -- would be something that would culminate in an action plan, in a document in the ministry, that the ministry would then use as a guide for ongoing policy development.

We now have something that was written in February, which we have only obtained recently, called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I guess I find it very surprising that the minister isn't aware of the existence of this document. I would gladly send him a copy of it, but I only have one at the moment. But I can certainly supply it to the minister, because even though he indicates that he doesn't spend a lot of time reading these documents, this is one that maybe he should spend some time on, because certainly it attempts to set out policy direction for job creation in this province. My understanding is that this was pretty central to the mandate and responsibility of his ministry.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: Actually, my colleague has offered to get this copied for you. It may be useful, because we can certainly come back to it from time to time throughout these debates.

With this job strategy as the minister has outlined, I wonder if he could tell us if there are specific targets. When we have strategies in government, it's useful to be able to measure whether or not we have achieved success in the implementation of these strategies. As the minister outlined to us earlier, could he tell us what specific targets he hopes to achieve in implementing this strategy? How will we be able to measure whether or not that strategy has been successful?

Hon. D. Miller: There have been some targets outlined, but not many. For the Guarantee for Youth, the forest job strategy and Tourism B.C. the targets are -- just running through those: 12,000 for youth, 21,000 in forestry by 2001 and 23,000 in tourism by the year 2000.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could tell us: in these numbers, these objectives that have been developed for these various areas he's just outlined, how will we be able to measure whether or not those job numbers have been achieved?

Hon. D. Miller: Where specific job targets have been announced, then it's clear that the member has something one can look at. The conventional sources will determine whether or not those targets have been realized or exceeded. Some of those are a few years out, but . . . . I think it's important that you can set identifiable goals in sectors where you think you can be that precise. It's clear, for example, where the Crown owns the forest resources and, through some pretty intensive consultation with the private sector, where those numbers make sense, or where there's a sector -- tourism, for example -- that feels they have real potential and can identify or quantify.

That's not true in every sector, I don't think. I talked about the knowledge-based sector, which is growing at 12 percent annually. Now, it's relatively small -- it's only about 2 percent of GDP -- but clearly there's significant potential for growth in that sector. So sometimes, in some areas, it makes sense to make targets; in others . . . . The mining industry has suggested that given certain conditions, there could be up to 20,000 new jobs created in the province by the year 2000,

[ Page 4046 ]

I think -- I could be wrong on the year; I'm not absolutely certain. But I've met with the mining industry on a number of occasions and asked whether they'd be interested in formalizing some working relationship in terms of achieving those targets. We're still in discussions on those questions.

The main thing is that you've got to put employment as a focus of your administration, and clearly the Premier has done that. The Premier has talked about jobs, jobs, jobs and has done more than talk about it. He's engaged in discussions with some sectors that clearly will lead to increased jobs -- the youth sector, which he's taken on as his own, and the forest sector. The numbers seem to support British Columbia's position in terms of job creation relative to the rest of Canada. So you have to make it a focus of your administration; you have to keep driving it. And I think that things tend to fall in line, if you like, in terms of the focus of government, which is job creation.

So that's our agenda -- that's one of our agendas -- and obviously an important one, given the dynamics, the growing population base that we have to be continually focused on. I'm convinced that other things will come along that even we haven't thought about that will enhance the opportunity to create new jobs in our province.

C. Hansen: I'd like to come back to the jobs strategy for a minute, but I don't want to leave this issue of how we measure success in these areas. Clearly, if 1,000 jobs are created as the result of a government program, but the result is that there are 1,000 individuals who are not employed who would have otherwise been employed . . . . The example I would use today is silviculture -- obviously, when it comes to issues such as the jobs and timber accord, we'll be dealing with that extensively in the Ministry of Forests estimates.

If we wind up with jobs being created as the result of a jobs and timber accord, and if all we're doing is replacing the existing workers, then that's not a net job creation.

My concern is . . . . What I'm asking the minister for is a measure whereby we, as observers of the work that is being done by his ministry and by his government, can objectively determine whether or not those programs have been successful. Is it a case of us taking the cumulative job count -- the cumulative count of individuals who are employed under government programs? Or is it a case of looking at some outside measurement, such as StatsCan labour force surveys that indicate the number of individuals employed in the province or employed in particular sectors? I wonder if the minister could give me some feedback on how we measure the success of his initiatives.

Hon. D. Miller: I can't be explicit with respect to forestry, and it may be a question that the Forests critic may wish to ask of the minister in estimates. In other words, I believe the question really is: what's the base? That's quantified statistically by a number of organizations. I think StatsCan is probably the one that's used most often. Certainly it's given rise to more questions on the employment or unemployment rate in this House, although I sometimes look at StatsCan numbers and wonder how they can move so quickly in a short period of time.

But we're all left to use those numbers to some degree as a base. So I would say that whatever statistical measurements are afoot, that represents the base. Presumably, whenever the time span indicated in terms of job targets particularly is reached, you look at that statistical base and ask: "Are we better off or worse off than when we started?" I guess that's potentially a debate for the future. But the base is defined -- I can't define it in absolute terms, but there are statistical indicators there.

C. Hansen: I think we are looking for a measure that is genuinely accepted as being objective in determining whether or not these programs are achieving success -- whether or not the government's initiatives on the job creation front generally are achieving success.

My colleague the member for Delta South kindly got us an extra copy of this document called "B.C. Jobs Strategy," which he's made available to the minister. Now that the minister has it in front of him, could he advise the House as to the involvement of his ministry in developing this strategy?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure that we had some input into this.

C. Hansen: Could the minister be more specific in terms of how the ministry officials or the minister himself were involved?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't detail that -- but, you know, the normal way ministries are involved.

C. Hansen: I thought we would have moved on from this by now. But I find it very intriguing that we have a document, which is titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," that is fundamental, I would think, to the mandate of the ministry and to the work that this minister is responsible to this House for, yet it seems that he has not read it and that he's not sure how the ministry has been involved in developing this document. Could the minister perhaps give us some more specific detail as to whether or not, for example, his deputy minister would have been involved in the development of this document?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm sure that's the case, but again I say that . . . . I mean, I'm not an administrator; I'm a minister. We oversee policy development. I did indicate that the focus of this government is jobs and the economy. That's the message from the Premier, and all of us in our respective ministries are engaged in one way or another in achieving that objective. I talked at length about some of the primary elements of a policy, and so now we're really getting down to the detail. I don't know who's responsible for every page or which official in my ministry sat with an official in another ministry.

If I had to keep track of all that, I'd never get anything done. So we've got a policy, we've got a strategy, and we want more jobs in this province. That's pretty simple.

[3:45]

C. Hansen: As the minister just said, he's not an administrator; he's a minister and he's responsible for policy development. When he outlined to this House earlier what he saw as the elements of a jobs strategy, he talked about administrative functions. He talked about the implementation of programs. He talked about the development of infrastructure projects. He talked about strategic initiatives, such as jobs and timber accords. I see those as administrative functions; they're not policy functions.

Everything he has outlined to us in terms of his

interpretation of a jobs strategy has everything to do with microeconomics -- how the government is going to micromanage sectors in the economy and specific job creation, where you've got 20 jobs created here, 100 jobs created there. But what I see

[ Page 4047 ]

as policy development is where the minister gets involved in developing broad economic policies in this province that are going to result in the creation of jobs, not the micromanagement of individual sectors or individual companies or individual Crown corporations.

You know, this thing titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy" is the closest thing I have seen come out of this government in terms of a jobs policy. I just find it astounding that the minister says he's not an administrator, he's responsible for policy, yet here we have a policy document on jobs that the minister doesn't appear to have any knowledge of. Again, I wonder if the minister can be more specific in terms of the involvement of his ministry in the development of this jobs policy.

Hon. D. Miller: I've tried to answer the question. I'm not certain about micromanagement. I know there are some fundamental differences between our sides. I do know that there is more of a tendency to take the more extreme position, ideologically and economically, that I've heard expressed on the other side. In other words, it's a version of what they used to call -- maybe they don't anymore -- the trickle-down theory. Most of the people at the bottom have rejected that one, for obvious reasons.

In other words, let's give a major tax cut to business and get out of the way, and somehow the world will unfold as we would like it to. If micromanaging is working with Canadian Airlines to save 12,000 jobs in B.C., then we're guilty. If micromanaging is working with the job protection commissioner to save 700 direct jobs in Golden and that community, then we're guilty. If micromanagement is working with the forest industry of British Columbia -- because we, the people of British Columbia, own the resources -- by saying, "We want more jobs," and by putting a job focus and job target . . . .

If that's micromanagement, then we're guilty.

I think there is maybe even a coming together internationally with respect to the role of government in terms of developing the economy. It's certainly not to stand back and, as I say, just simply deliver big tax cuts and hope that capital will do the right thing; rather, it's working with the private sector, working more intensively in areas where you have control of resources -- like the forest sector -- to expand your economy and create more jobs and more opportunities. It seems to make a heck of a lot of sense to me. This strategy appears to be paying off to some degree in British Columbia.

It's one that we ought to continue. I know that members opposite disagree, and that's fair enough. That's why they're in another political party and why they're critics.

As to how many staff people in my ministry spent how many hours sitting with someone else from some other ministry . . . . If you want to get down to that level, maybe I could make someone available who keeps track of the hours and those kinds of things. But I certainly don't.

C. Hansen: The purpose of my question was not to determine how many individuals spent how many hours developing this job creation strategy. The purpose of my question was to find out whether anybody in his ministry was involved in developing this job creation strategy. Or did it come out of thin air? Maybe it came from somewhere else completely; if so, that's very important information for the taxpayers in this province.

Here we have the closest thing to a jobs policy, which I would think the minister would be standing up and being very proud of, because it's the first thing we have seen on paper that is anything relating to a jobs strategy in this province. I would have thought he would have been trumpeting the attributes of his party and his government for having come up with something on paper that the public can read and relate to.

Hon. Chair, the purpose of my question is really to find out if anybody . . . . Maybe I should word it this way: were any of the officials in his department involved with developing this B.C. jobs strategy?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe so.

C. Hansen: Now we're making some progress. Could the minister advise us who was involved, at what level? Are they officials within the economic policy branch? Is it the deputy minister level? Perhaps he could tell us at what level officials were involved.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Chair, I'm sure that just a brief moment ago the member said he wasn't interested in that level of detail, and now he's asking for it. Somehow, I knew he wanted to go there. Look, we don't have any accounting here in terms of . . . . Obviously, officials in my ministry were involved in the development of economic papers. As to the number of hours precisely -- deputy minister and others -- we can certainly try to put that together. I'm not certain it's relevant. The only relevancy is that the government has a jobs agenda and is working very hard to try to achieve it.

C. Hansen: I believe this is very relevant to the estimates of the ministry. There is nothing that should be more central to the objective of the ministry than something called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I will leave this subject for now, hon. Chair, but I would ask the minister, if he could, to first read the document and, secondly, determine for us the extent to which his ministry was involved in developing the document. I will come back to these questions before we leave these estimates.

The reason that I believe this is important is because we need to know who's driving the jobs agenda for this government. We need to know that the words that are in this document . . . . Who do we hold accountable for this? Who do we hold accountable for whether or not these objectives are achieved? Who do we hold accountable for the fact that there are no targets in here? There are no ways by which we can measure success -- whether or not the government is achieving its objectives.

So, hon. Chair, if the minister, over the spare time that he has in the next day or so, could find that . . . . It's certainly a subject that we will come back to revisit. If his ministry did not develop this document, I would like to know where in government this document comes from and who it is in government that we hold accountable for a jobs strategy or the lack of a jobs strategy -- or, more importantly, whether or not a jobs strategy is being implemented effectively and to the benefit of British Columbians. That's why I think that's of fundamental importance.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, with all due respect, I do think that what's important is that the government has a strategy, that there be a reasonable level of public confidence that that exists, and that the government is engaged in trying to realize that.

At the end of the day, in politics . . . . Surely the member, now having gone through two elections, will realize that in fact the ultimate arbiter of whether governments succeed or fail is the public of British Columbia -- sometimes with the

[ Page 4048 ]

opposition's help, sometimes not. Notwithstanding that, governments are elected or defeated according to the wishes of the public, and that tests wonderfully in a parliamentary democracy -- and, in a democracy, it always comes; it's never delayed. So, really, we have a great deal of work to do. We think that there are some serious issues in this province. Clearly, with the kind of population growth, the challenges that that presents . . . . We also think there are wonderful opportunities for expanding the economy in this province, for creating additional jobs.

While there's no magic for that, I think you have to be focused. Regardless of who might produce a text or a piece of paper, ultimately governments are accountable. And we'll see, at the end of a reasonable mandate, whether or not . . . . That's something that the public will judge.

C. Hansen: This is an important document, I believe. Again, if I come back to it, if the minister can get some more information on it, so that we can pursue it before the course is run on these estimate debates . . . . In the absence of information that somebody else is responsible for the jobs strategy, I think it's only reasonable that we on this side of the House and the public generally hold this minister responsible for the jobs strategy, because it is in fact his ministry, the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

If there's any ministry that should be responsible for a written jobs strategy with specific, achievable goals that we can hold the ministry accountable for, it's this ministry that has to take on that responsibility.

The minister talked about the fact that this jobs strategy was working -- whether or not it's the jobs strategy that he enunciated verbally, or whether it's this written jobs strategy. He pointed to the fact that 200,000 jobs have been created in British Columbia. I think the minister's statistics are out of date, because there has been a very dramatic change in the employment outlook in this province and a very dramatic change in the trends that we have seen in terms of job creation. What we have seen in the last six months is a decrease of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia.

The minister and the governing party are very quick to stand up and brag about 200,000 jobs having been created -- 40,000 jobs having been created in 1996 -- but the fact of the matter is that the latest trends are not encouraging.

During question period today we had statistics that we brought forward that show that there are 7,000 fewer young British Columbians employed today than a year ago. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we see 18,000 fewer people employed in British Columbia than six months ago.

I would like to ask the minister: given that we have seen this change in the numbers that have been coming out of Statistics Canada, which the minister acknowledged earlier is the base upon which we should work -- the empirical numbers on which we should base our judgment of whether or not this government is doing a successful job or not in the area of job creation . . . . The base is in fact StatsCan and those numbers. And those numbers, as we have seen over the last several months, are not encouraging numbers. Those numbers do not indicate that this government has been successful in its job creation strategy.

My question for the minister is: given this latest trend in the last six months, does he see a fundamental shift in the job strategy that is obviously not generating the overall job increases that this province needs and expects and which the taxpayers in British Columbia know this province has the potential to create if the right policies are in place?

Hon. D. Miller: Just a couple of points. One is that, regardless of the statistics . . . . Certainly it's something that in my lifetime or, at least in my working life, I've seen a dramatic change in. The member is not quite as old as I am, so he perhaps doesn't have as long a memory in terms of the kind of unemployment rate that used to exist when I exited high school and started looking for work.

I also said earlier in one of my remarks that I was a bit perplexed by some of the StatsCan numbers. They seemed, quite frankly -- and about six months ago there were some articles written relative to that question -- to be jumping all over the place. So while I'm not questioning them, because I can't -- I'm not going to try to entertain a major questioning of StatsCan numbers -- it does remind me of a humorous story. It's not humorous if you're unemployed, but it's about statistics and how they're garnered and what they mean.

[4:00]

I was meeting with the deputy mayor of Taipei, who was in Victoria last year, and indeed we . . . . There are obvious reasons to meet with the deputy mayor of Taipei. There are business opportunities, and some British Columbia companies are realizing real benefits there. I noticed in reading the statistical information that I received prior to the meeting that the unemployment rate was terrifically low. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was between 1 and 2 percent.

I'd always been a bit envious of the kind of growth rates we see in some of the Asian economies and intrigued as to how they can achieve some of those growth rates. I mentioned to the deputy mayor, who's a Harvard-trained individual, that his unemployment rate seemed to be startlingly low and asked if he had any tips that he could give me on that side, because we were concerned about unemployment here in British Columbia. He said: "It all depends on how you count." And it does to some degree; it all depends on how you count. Clearly in Taiwan they have a different way of counting.

I think he made some remark that if you happen to be walking through a public square and pick up a broom, well, you're employed. Whether you're getting paid or not is another matter.

I don't say this to try to be humorous, but rather to try and illustrate the point that there has been and will continue to be, I think, as long as we keep statistics, a debate about participation rates. In other words, how many people are looking for work? That's where I see the startling jump in numbers that StatsCan is reporting. In one month they report a huge increase in the number of people apparently in the workforce looking for work, and in a subsequent month that can decline by a fairly dramatic amount. That has puzzled me.

I haven't got to the bottom of it, but I guess what I would argue is that you also look at the number of people employed, to the degree that that is something that can be measured in a more definitive way than the number of people looking for work or who would like to have a job . . . . I again qualify this, because I'm never satisfied with . . . . I don't feel a sense of smugness about British Columbia's ability to generate jobs. I feel a sense of pride as a British Columbian that clearly the western provinces -- particularly B.C. and Alberta -- are emerging in Canada as the new economic powerhouses.

I think that trend is actually set. There's no question, in my view, that our two western provinces, over time, will become the economic leaders in Canada, for a variety of reasons. That's good, in my view, because it creates more opportunities here, in the province that I'm elected in.

We have seen some reasonably good numbers. The employment level in May of this year is up 26,000 persons

[ Page 4049 ]

from a year ago. So 26,000 more people are working today than were working a year ago. While the unemployment rate did decline slightly -- in the latest rollout of StatsCan numbers, we went from 9.1 to 8.8 percent -- we've had, as I say, this significant challenge.

I'll go back and state again, on a percentage basis, that the growth of the working-age population in British Columbia has been 15 percent. The growth of the working-age population of the rest of Canada has been 6.8 percent. So it's clear, if you stand back and don't try to draw too many conclusions from statistics month over month, but rather, look at trends, that not just ourselves but western Canada has been the economic leader in both expansion of the economy -- GDP -- and the creation of new jobs in Canada to a startling degree.

As well -- and again, I think, being particularly sensitive to the issue of youth unemployment . . . . We bucked the national trend in British Columbia; we went against the national trend. Just reading some of these stats . . . . Employment amongst B.C. youth, 15 to 24, was up by 11,600 jobs in May, compared to April. I hope those numbers are right. That's not bad. Partly the numbers reflect the increased seasonal labour demand, etc., but there has been a fairly significant increase in the number of people looking, and that goes to the participation side.

So while our youth unemployment rate, at 16.7 percent, is up 0.1 percent from the previous month, there have been more people, obviously, looking for work. The youth unemployment rate in B.C. in May was below the 18.3 percent rate recorded in the rest of Canada. To the degree that you have to look at your own circumstances in a relative sense, there is some reasonably good news in British Columbia. The average level of employment amongst B.C. youth was up 5,400 jobs during the period of January to May '97, compared to the same period a year ago. So about 5,500 more people in that age cohort were working, as compared to a year ago.

You can run statistics all over the map, I guess; all of us do it, and all of us quote those ones that seem to put ourselves in the most favourable light. Having been in opposition, I recall quoting those that put the government in the most unfavourable light. Yes, I admit to my hon. colleague that I did. But there is a balance that is required in terms of understanding that question.

I'll close on this note. We've made a concerted effort with respect to employment, and particularly youth employment. I think there's a challenge in our country that has not been taken up by the private sector. I start to see little signs of it here and there. I see some of the banks occasionally issue a little statement; there was a program announced yesterday or today, I think, involving the banks in some entrepreneurship. I just want to make this point: it's not good enough. Government should lead by example, but I think there is also a responsibility in the private sector to be engaged in a focused strategy regarding youth employment.

I know that when I talk to business leaders, there is some recognition of that, but it's not really manifested in any significant focus by the private sector to say: "This is a problem; we've got a role to play here. Here's something specific, other than a general statement that we're concerned about it."

G. Campbell: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Campbell: In the chamber today we have 20 students from the Fraser Academy in Vancouver, in my constituency. I'm sure they're enjoying this discussion with regard to their economic future and the jobs that will be available to them. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

C. Hansen: Just to follow up on the comments that were made by the minister in terms of youth jobs, we have in several cases commented on the cause of youth unemployment. I was surprised that the minister didn't have a better understanding as to what is causing it. It is being caused by the inflexibility that we have in our workforce.

You have small companies around this province that are struggling to survive. They're struggling in an environment that is becoming increasingly competitive. When you've got government policies -- and these policies aren't germane to this ministry; I think they're primarily germane to the Ministry of Labour -- that really make it very, very difficult for companies to create jobs for young British Columbians, that's not something the minister should be pointing at the business community about and saying that somehow they have let down young people.

In fact, they should be looking at the policies that have been developed by this government over the last four years if they want to find out the cause of structural unemployment -- increased unemployment among young British Columbians.

But let me come back to the point of statistics. Obviously I don't think we want to get bogged down in questions of whose statistics are right, but I did want to make the point that statistics are a relative thing. It's true: you can't compare our method of gathering unemployment numbers in British Columbia or in Canada to that of Taiwan or the city of Taipei. Instead, I think we have to look at the system that we have.

The minister talked about the discussions of how stats are collected in Canada. They have generally been consistent for many, many years. So when we start talking about an unemployment rate today vis-�-vis five years ago, or unemployment statistics today as compared to a year ago, when we were just finishing a provincial election campaign, those are relevant, because we are talking about statistics that have been gathered in the same way. I don't think it's fair for the minister to dismiss labour force statistics as somehow invalid because of what's happening in Taipei.

I know that's not what he said, but I just want to come back to the point that they are valid tools for us to use in measuring whether or not this government has been successful in the area of job creation. I contend that they have not been. Again, when he talks about the fact that in the last year there have been 26,000 new jobs created, that's a little different tune than in December, when this minister and this government were talking about 40,000 jobs created in 1996. The reason that those numbers don't jibe is that in the last six months, we have seen a dramatic change in job creation in this province.

We have seen the loss of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia. I believe that is an indictment of the strategies that this government is following when it comes to job creation.

My question to the minister is: is the government planning any fundamental change in policy direction vis-�-vis job creation as the result of the trends that we have seen, not for the last month but for the last six months? This is not good news for British Columbians. I think the province is looking for a fundamental change of direction. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not any of these job strategies will be revisited, in view of the trends in the last six months.

Hon. D. Miller: No. In fact, if anything, we need to become more focused in terms of the jobs strategy and on delivery and implementation.

[ Page 4050 ]

I appreciate the member's argument. I guess what I was trying to say was that in any statistical battle, those on one side of the debate will take the statistics they think support their position and use them with vehemence, and those on the other side of the debate will take those that they think make them look good and use them with equal vehemence. That's generally what we call question period, which may be entertaining only to ourselves. I've never heard anybody beyond these walls actually comment on it too much. That is, to some degree, politics.

I hope the member would understand what I am trying to say -- again, with no disrespect. We are, after all, politicians, and what we say . . . . I was always cautioned many years ago by that old saying: when you start drinking too much of your own bathwater, you're in trouble. I've always tried to remember that.

Really, you can look at statistics, and to the extent that they indicate change, they tell you something. Do they tell you everything? No, I don't think so. Have we done B.C. statistically in an objective sense -- and I would say even a combined B.C.-Alberta sense -- in terms of the number of persons employed or new jobs created in British Columbia, relative to the rest of Canada? I think the numbers are there, and I don't think they're contested.

Should you rest on your laurels and say: "Things are fine, and we don't have to worry"? No, absolutely not. Should governments develop specific policies and focus in terms of job creation? And we've done that. We're at one year in this administration. We'll ultimately be judged by our performance over what is a reasonable term of office, as we've just witnessed at the federal level.

Again, it was interesting to note in the federal election that we recently held that there were some who tried to make a focus or an issue of jobs and job creation. In some parts of the country, that was a bigger issue than in other parts. Interestingly enough, in that election it was at the federal level that all of the parties were accusing each other of having failed abysmally with respect to the issue of job creation. I guess the butt of that, or the prime party that was being attacked, was the federal Liberal Party. They made it an issue when they first got elected and said they were going to do some things, and those things haven't materialized.

I want to go back, just very briefly -- I know the member's views on the rigidity of the system, and how that acts as a barrier to the creation of jobs for youth -- and put this in more straightforward language. I think the member has commented in the past on things like the Employment Standards Act and minimum wage -- those kinds of things that are generally, if you want to put this in kind of a fiscal argument . . . . Generally you hear sort of right-of-centre arguments about just taking the handcuffs off business and somehow we'll all be doing fine.

[4:15]

On the other side of that, of course, are British Columbians who weren't covered by employment standards. For example, I know some immigrant workers were doing garment work in their homes without the benefit of even a single piece of legislation that provided them with some degree of support with respect to hours of work, basic fairness in wages -- those kinds of things. I don't think the member would argue sincerely against coverage for those kinds of people.

We can't exclude youth in our country; we can't isolate youth in terms of legislation. Therefore there is no specific exemption for young people from the Employment Standards Act. I know I have talked to many young people who think that making seven bucks an hour is not the way to earn a heck of a lot of money to help finance their education. Nonetheless, they realize that a lot of them are entry-level jobs. I'm sure the member wouldn't argue that we should scrap minimum wage. I know the member wouldn't do that. In fact, he may want to confirm that he wouldn't.

I just want to close on one final note. I talked about the private sector. While parts of our economy and sectors of our economy have had their specific struggles -- witness the forest industry now because of the severe decline in the commodity price of pulp, which has had a dramatic effect, not just here, but in every jurisdiction where that's manufactured -- there are some sectors that have done very well.

I was trying to make a simple point that if we have a sector -- a discrete, recognizable sector -- of our economy who are performing in an outstanding way and who are clearly not suffering because they're not able to get a return on their investment, then is it not reasonable . . . ? Does society not tend to want to say that the responsibility is distributed? It's not just the exclusive purview of government or anybody else; it's distributed in our society. Isn't that kind of the glue that keeps us together?

Would it not be reasonable, for example, for an industry, a sector . . . ? Pick on the banks; they're easy enough to pick on. I don't wish to do that, necessarily, in a gratuitous way, but I noticed just recently that one of the banks is on its way to posting a profit of about a billion and a half dollars in this fiscal year. That's following a profit of either a billion dollars or $800 million in the previous fiscal year. Now, the banks all say to me: "Look, that's a sign of the health of our economy. Don't pick on us." And I say: "Fair enough.

But do you think you might have a responsibility to take some of that profit and say: 'As Canadian institutions, we also have a broader responsibility, and we're going to put into focus youth employment strategies'?" Not a bad idea! I don't see those kinds of initiatives coming up; that's all I was trying to say. It's not just government.

In fact, the conventional wisdom from the right-of-centre parties is that government should just get out of the way. I think the private sector has a responsibility in our society to play a part. And with youth unemployment running at 18 percent in Canada -- and in B.C., it's 16 percent -- I'd like to see some of those initiatives. We challenged the private sector last year; they didn't perform. The Premier challenged them last year to create 3,000 private sector jobs; they didn't do it.

They said: "We didn't have time to consult." Well, they've had lots of time to think about it now, and we'll work with anybody who's got some ideas in terms of how they might contribute, because I do think it's a broader responsibility that we all have.

C. Hansen: It's interesting. There are lots of things the minister raised in what was a fairly philosophical statement that I would love to respond to at length. But I think if we get into that long philosophical discussion on every point, we'll be here for a long time, which I'm sure the minister is not anxious for.

Certainly nobody on this side of the House has ever advocated getting rid of the minimum wage. No one has ever advocated getting rid of employment standards legislation. What we have advocated is looking at the root cause of unemployment among youth, so that we can allow the private sector to create the kind of jobs that are necessary. Because we are not going to solve the problem of youth unemployment in this province by government going around creating 100 jobs

[ Page 4051 ]

here and 100 jobs there. The fact of the matter is, if we're going to find jobs for the 50,500 young British Columbians who are seeking work today, there has to be something more fundamental than announcement after announcement after announcement.

Earlier the minister talked about B.C. and Alberta being two provinces that have so much economic potential, and yet we don't see B.C. being part of that economic drive. We don't see B.C. being able to capitalize on the potential and the opportunity that is there. I think the other thing the minister talked about -- the comparison to other provinces . . . . He talked about this as a pan-Canadian problem in many areas. But the fact of the matter is that B.C. used to have the highest economic growth per capita of any province.

Today we are number ten of the jurisdictions in Canada when it comes to economic growth per capita. And that is something that has happened in the last few years; we have seen that kind of downturn in economic growth in this province. Certainly, if you look at unemployment rates, B.C. should be the best; B.C. should have the lowest unemployment rate in this country. In fact, that's not true. In fact, British Columbia has the highest rate of unemployment of any province in Canada west of the Quebec-Ontario border.

And that's not good enough for this province, because I think all of us know that this province has much more potential, much more opportunity.

But anyway, let me come back to some more specifics and perhaps some more mundane questions regarding the ministry. We've talked at length about the jobs strategy -- whether it is enunciated by the minister or written. We're not sure where it came from. That certainly is half of the minister's responsibility and the ministry's responsibility. Could the minister please outline for us what he sees as the investment strategy, as the other half of his ministry's mandate?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, briefly, just to go back, or finish up, at least, with respect to the sort of statistics . . . . I certainly reject the member's characterization of British Columbia's economy and its dynamism, because it's really not true. I understand the nature of opposition, which is to criticize. But to ignore the fact that -- what? -- 177,200 jobs were created . . . . Given B.C., with 13 percent of the population of Canada and the number of jobs that were created in this jurisdiction . . . .

I'm always leery, as a politician, of standing up and claiming credit every time there's a new job in our economy. And I think the public kind of shares that. But one cannot dispute the absolute fundamental statistics, in terms of job creation, in this province. And it's outstanding, relative to the rest of Canada.

The other thing, of course, is that, because of our unique position and a variety of circumstances, we really, essentially, avoided the last recession. The recession that hounded and just wreaked terrible havoc on provinces like Ontario didn't hit in British Columbia. The kind of decline in employment that took place in those provinces didn't happen here. We've had continuous growth. I can't remember the exact numbers for each and every year, but we've had continuous growth this year. Last year was, again, something that struck and took everybody by surprise.

All the economic forecasters were on record predicting certain growth rates which didn't materialize. If there's any comfort being in a crowd, I guess that's it. But all the numbers that appear now, it seems to me, are projecting a return to what is a normal state. I've got a quote here from somebody, some banker. Ha! They're always pretty reliable.

So we'll have to wait and see where this leads us. And we've also had, as I've indicated, given the predominance of forest products in terms of our economy . . . . The dramatic downturn in the commodity price of pulp has had a huge impact with respect to the value of our exports and bumping back into our economy the kinds of jobs that one would normally expect. I think in forestry, in fact, there was a net increase of 10,000 new jobs prior to pulp hitting the tank, where I think we dropped another 5,000. So there's a net gain of 5,000, I believe, over the period of five to six years.

And to the degree that pulp returns to what is traditionally a more normal price, I think you're going to see some stabilizing of that sector. So I wouldn't be so doom and gloom about British Columbia's prospects; in fact, if I were living here, and I think there are many who are living here . . . . They tend to be quite bullish on the prospects for the British Columbia economy.

The member asked a question, and in fact I've gone and talked so much that I forgot the question. So perhaps the member could rephrase it.

C. Hansen: Before I rephrase the question, maybe I'll just comment briefly on the minister's comments.

I told the minister: "Do not rest on old statistics." You know, if you talk about job growth in years gone by, that is not the record that we have for job creation in this province in the last six months. And I'm not the forecaster of doom and gloom; I see enormous potential for this province. But I am deeply concerned when we see the kind of drop in employment numbers in this province that we have seen in the last eight months. And I believe that that is an indictment of the policies that have been pursued by this government. He might point to certain sectors that are bullish.

But overall, there is no reason to claim that this economy is reaching its potential today, when you start to look at our record in GDP growth. You know, a lot of people say: "Well our economy has been growing, but we've had this great influx of immigrants from other parts of Canada and from other parts of the world." And while we had GDP growth in this province every year, there has been a decline in the GDP per capita.

You know, if we've got new people coming to this province, that should, in itself, result in job creation and should, in itself, result in economic growth. But in fact what we've seen is a decline in GDP per capita. What we have seen is not job growth proportionate to the number of new people coming into this province. We have actually seen a decline in jobs. You talk about comparisons between B.C. and Alberta. We see a net outflow from British Columbia to Alberta of individuals who see more opportunities in that province because of the policies being pursued there.

But to come back to the question I asked before. We've talked about employment strategies. The minister outlined his

interpretation of employment strategies, and I pointed out this document -- we're not sure where it came from -- called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I've asked the minister . . . . And now that we have talked about this jobs strategy or the lack of it, could the minister please give us an overview of his sense of the ministry's mandate when it comes to investment strategy? What is being done in the other half of this minister's responsibility in a ministry that's called Employment and Investment?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'll supply a bit more information. I don't get hung up on this, but the growth in the working-age population in this province over the last five years is 15 percent. The growth in the working-age population in the rest of Canada is just under 7 percent. B.C. has grown, and we've

[ Page 4052 ]

had to accommodate twice as many entrants into the workforce as any other province in Canada. Even with that, our job creation record is far and away better than any other province over that period of time.

The member is trying to make an argument that in the last few short months, things have declined. When my party initially came to office in 1991, the unemployment rate was 10 percent. It's now at 8.8 percent, and it has declined every single year. Go back to 1987, and it was 12 percent.

C. Hansen: And what's happening in the U.S.?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, now the member wants to compare us to the U.S., and I'd be delighted to get into a debate about that. We could talk about social medicine, and we could talk about the social safety net. We could talk about the armies of the poor who populate the streets of the major American cities. We could talk about that, and if that's the member's vision for British Columbia, I'd be happy to debate that member anywhere, anytime, on that point. That seems to me like saying: "Let's pull the plug here and all go down together."

That's not a strategy for job creation. I simply want to point to the fact . . . . Go back to '87 -- a different administration and 12 percent unemployment. I'm not here to throw rocks at them, but every year we've been in office, the unemployment rate has gone down. It has declined, just like that. It could be better, I agree, but please don't suggest for a moment that nothing has happened, because there's nothing there to support your contention.

The B.C. Trade and Investment Office. I did talk generally about looking at opportunity wherever it might arise, both with respect to new investment in the province and working with existing sectors. The B.C. Trade and Investment Office has a number of functions that we think are critical in terms of a jobs agenda: to strengthen and diversity B.C.'s employment base; looking at the designing and delivery of sectoral strategies -- I talked, for example, about the Avcorp deal that was reached a short while ago; pursuing value-added opportunities; supporting trade and investment opportunities; industrial adjustment; and trying to understand, in fact, the key sectors of our economy.

[4:30]

We have been involved in several specific projects. I'm looking, for example, at the investment we made, while the Premier held my job, in the Ballard fuel cell technology. That was a good investment of the taxpayers' money in British Columbia, and we can see now that Mercedes-Benz and others are joining in that investment. One of the strategies is to look at that Ballard fuel cell and the potential for Vancouver as a manufacturing centre for that.

Another function is to package and promote B.C.'s emerging new media and animation software to Japanese markets. That's why, in the trade missions that have taken place and in others to come, we generally try to focus on a particular sector that has some growth opportunity that exists in our province, which could either stand to benefit from increased exports of the technology developed here or could stand to have some offshore investment to expand that capacity. Certainly our emerging expertise in that sector of media and animation software has significant potential in the Japanese market.

We have been working to secure three major contracts in Asian markets for the B.C. coalition of wireless telecom firms in the area of distance learning and rural telephony. We have signed a recent MOU with the government of Malaysia, which is a country of a thousand islands, I think they said, depending if the tide is high or low, and it includes the issues around communications with respect to basic communications for the citizens. Communications in terms of the educational infrastructure are a huge challenge, and we've got the kind of technology here that can be of some assista