2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Bill 9 — Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Morris

M. Farnworth

D. Plecas

D. Bing

Hon. M. Morris

Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Bond

S. Simpson

L. Throness

N. Macdonald

S. Hamilton

L. Krog

D. Plecas

B. Routley

Hon. M. Morris

K. Conroy

G. Kyllo

R. Austin

M. Hunt

D. Routley

S. Gibson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of International Trade

Hon. T. Wat

B. Ralston

[ Page 11179 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: Madame Speaker, I’d like to thank you and those who attended the event that you organized for Equal Voice in the lounge this lunchtime. It was great to have the opportunity to talk about women entering politics. I have to thank Equal Voice Carolyn Jack, who has been very influential over the last few years for Equal Voice in B.C., and also, the amazing singer who came along and sang some very powerful music — Louise Rose.

Madame Speaker, thank you very much. I think that all members who attended found it a very interesting, engaging and stimulating lunch.

Hon. N. Letnick: On behalf of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Premier and myself, it was, indeed, a pleasure just now to meet with two firefighters from our local Kelowna area, Jason Picklyk and Mike Hill. I would just like to say thank you to all firefighters everywhere for all the good work they do. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this House, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 3, and in the little House, the estimates of the Ministry of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, I call the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation to close the debate.

[1335]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s very comforting for me to see that we’re at the end of the past few days of debate on Bill 3. We’ve had some great commentary and some commentary that obviously had nothing at all to do with the bill that I brought forward. While it’s encouraging for me to know that the members opposite will be voting in favour of this very positive legislation, I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to ensure that I correct some of the misinformation as we go forward, the misinformation that is still being communicated.

Firstly, I’d like to say that it is true that this bill will immediately affect about 1,000 people with disabilities throughout our province who are applying for disability assistance. We expect that number to continue to grow in coming years. What I want to make clear is: members opposite have talked about 90,000 individuals on income assistance and their concern for those individuals not being included.

I just want to clarify that 90,000 individuals in this province already have the PWD designation, so this change to the bill will not be applying to those individuals. It’s a very simple fact. I don’t know if it was intentional or whether it was something that was overlooked, but I just want to say that those individuals will be exempt from this category because they are already receiving the PWD designations.

I also, for the record, want to acknowledge that PWD earning exemptions were never eliminated by this side of the House. However, under the leadership of the opposition, the income assistance rates were cut, and in ten years’ time, they only raised the rates $10.

One of the other things that came forward during this bill and during this debate was the fact that members were mentioning that many of the doctors or nurse practitioners and other professionals obligated to fill out the forms for PWD were struggling to get those forms filled out, and in some places in the province, they were having difficulties getting the access to the assistance.

I simply want to tell members opposite, if there is ever a situation where this arises, I simply want to know. I want to ensure that people are getting the access to the disability assistance that they deserve, and I want to ensure that the medical practitioners who are obligated to fill out the forms are doing what they are intended to do, plain and simple. So again, please bring those cases to me so that I can ensure that any issues are remedied.

The other thing that came up during this debate on the bill was the comparison to Alberta’s disability assistance rates. I have to, again, say it’s very misleading for us to compare something that is really apples and oranges.

I’d like us to acknowledge, for the record, that here in British Columbia, we actually help, per capita…. Two times as many people are eligible here in British Columbia for PWD. In Alberta, the income supports, the income for the severely handicapped, also known as AISH, have a higher disability payment, but the supports are far different than what we provide here in British Columbia.

I’d like to just point out the actual numbers. For people in British Columbia, we have 94,003 cases of PWD, where

[ Page 11180 ]

in Alberta, there’s about 52,000. Per capita we support 3.1,

whereas in Alberta, 1.9, in their support for people with disabilities. Part of that is because B.C.’s eligibility criteria are much more broad than what we see in Alberta. Alberta’s disability programs require that individuals have a permanent and enduring disability,

whereas B.C. stipulates that you can have a severe mental or physical impairment with the duration of two years — not forever, not permanent, not enduring.

Alberta also requires that the condition substantially limits a person’s ability to earn a livelihood,

whereas B.C.’s disability assistance program also does not refer to employability — only that the condition directly impacts a person’s ability to perform daily living activities.

[1340]

I am glad that I could have the opportunity to put that on the record. There has been a great deal of this debate that has swayed to the recent changes for the PWD increase to the rates along with the bus pass. Unfortunately, the members opposite have taken this opportunity, during the debate, to continue to misrepresent the recently announced $170 million increase to people with disabilities in this province.

Let me take a brief moment to clarify the facts yet again — one more time. Our government is providing a $170 million investment over the next three years to increase the rates for people with disabilities in British Columbia. We are raising the rates, and we’re also bringing fairness to the system and more choice for people with disability assistance.

We will continue to provide the annual bus pass for anyone on disability assistance who chooses it. It is not being cancelled. It is not being removed. It is still offered. People can access transportation in the communities just the same way that they have accessed it before. There is no change.

On top of that, those who have the bus pass will see a $25 rate increase on their monthly cheques. As of September 1, everyone with the disability designation, persons with disabilities on assistance, no matter where they live, will receive an equal amount of funding provided by this government.

That means that 45,000 people in this province who were not receiving any transportation subsidy will now receive extra support. That is stuff that we heard from the disability consultation that we did in prior years, where we heard from individuals who lived in those rural communities who didn’t see how it was fair — and that there was inequity in the system.

Just for the record, I will speak to a few comments that we received from people during that consultation. One comment was: “When I moved to Princeton, my car allowance was cut because I was told the area was not served by B.C. Transit. Therefore, I didn’t have transportation access.”

Another says: “I live in rural areas with no bus service. I don’t receive any assistance for transportation. How does the government expect me to get around? I live 45 minutes away from town.”

There are many, many that I could highlight from people who have said that persons with disabilities who don’t live close to rapid transit were not receiving access to transportation needs, although they still had transportation needs.

There is plenty more that I’d like to set straight on the record regarding Bill 3. I look forward to having that opportunity during the committee stage to set the record straight so that we can continue to look at how we are ensuring that we are caring for people with disabilities in this province, that we are providing them with the supports that are necessary.

In conclusion to debate on Bill 3, I once again want to express that this bill is amending the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. It will simplify and improve the application and adjudication process for up to 1,000 people who live in B.C. It means less stress. It means faster access to the disability assistance for those individuals and their families. With these other changes that we have also made in government, it will continue to make life a little bit easier for people with disabilities.

It’s a change that makes sense. It is something I know, and I hope that all members of this House will support it. Again, I look forward to committee stage where I can go more in-depth to the facts and clear up any misinformation that we’ve heard during the debate.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion approved.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 3, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 9.

BILL 9 — MOTOR DEALER

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Morris: I move that Bill 9 now be read a second time.

[1345]

These amendments will modernize the Motor Dealer Act to ensure that it continues to protect consumers as the motor vehicle sales industry in this province, an in-

[ Page 11181 ]

dustry that currently employs more than 36,000 people and contributes approximately $12 billion to $15 billion annually to the provincial GDP, continues to grow.

Therein lies the purpose of these changes: to better protect consumers and support a responsible and professional industry. One key change to modernize the act is the introduction of a range of progressive administrative enforcement options that align with best practices in other consumer protection legislation in B.C.

The new enforcement tools include the authority to receive undertakings, make compliance orders and impose administrative penalties. These additional tools will enhance the ability of the regulator, the vehicle sales authority, to address contraventions of the act in a more timely and effective manner when compared to the options currently available.

Further changes will enhance administrative fairness and transparency by providing, for example, authority for the registrar of motor dealers to reconsider decisions regarding licensing and enforcement, as well as authority for the board of the compensation fund to reconsider its decisions respecting consumer applications for compensation from motor dealers.

Fairness and transparency are also supported by modernizing the provisions for the services of notices and orders under the act. Additional and contemporary means of service, such as email, have been added, as well as provisions for deeming the receipt of a notice or an order.

Administrative penalties that are imposed are to be paid into a new motor dealer consumer advancement fund. As the name suggests, money in this fund is to be spent for specific purposes, such as promoting education about the act, which will further help protect consumers and support a responsible, professional industry.

A further change is the ability to establish regulations for the licensing of a growing segment of the industry: used vehicle wholesalers and brokers who act on behalf of consumers in the purchase of a vehicle. With this change, we can better ensure that wholesalers and brokers understand licensing requirements under the statute in a manner similar to motor dealers and salespersons. In doing so, we can better ensure that consumers are receiving the information they need to make informed purchases.

Amendments will also enable the transfer of trusteeship of the existing motor dealer customer compensation fund from government to the vehicle sales authority. The transfer of the fund will help reduce administrative costs, red tape, by centralizing all management functions in one place within the authority.

Finally, to further support a responsible and professional motor vehicle sales industry, an additional regulation-making authority is proposed to establish and enforce a code of professional conduct for motor dealers and all licensees under the act.

These amendments will ensure that the vehicle sales authority has the tools it needs to effectively regulate motor vehicle sales in this province, and in doing so, support the continued professionalism of the motor dealer industry in this province.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise today and speak to this particular piece of legislation. It’s an important bill, Bill 9, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016. I can tell the minister responsible that this side of the House will be supporting the bill. There are some questions we have.

I also want to take this opportunity, in my remarks, to hopefully make the case to address what I think is one of the most egregious errors in this province. I will come to that in a moment.

The minister outlined, in his remarks, the importance of the automobile industry to the province of British Columbia. It employs some 36,000 people. That’s a lot of jobs, jobs that are not just in Vancouver or Prince George. They’re in every community in our province.

I know that, myself, I bought my new vehicle at the beginning of last year at Metro Motors in Port Coquitlam, a dealership that has been there since at least 1965. They have been successful because they offer good service. I can tell you that when I bought my vehicle — I don’t want to sound like I’m advertising; I’m not — the experience I had getting a new vehicle was terrific.

[1350]

In part, it’s because there’s strong legislation governing the sales practices, and there’s an understanding, as a consumer, to know what to expect. And it doesn’t hurt — the fact that there is nothing quite like that new car smell when you get a brand-new vehicle.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Sorry? That will be in the next vehicle.

But this one’s perfect, particularly since we’ve got a new dog, and it can jump in the back, and there’s lots of room, and you know.

But the point I’m making is that when you purchase a new vehicle, when you purchase a vehicle, not only are you supporting a local business in your community, not only are you supporting the people that work there; you’re supporting the automobile sector in this country, because most of us…. The vehicles made here in this country are jobs that our neighbours help to build in other parts of Canada. It’s a tremendous stimulus to the economy of this province and this country. It adds some $12 billion to $15 billion a year in GDP.

That’s terrific. Think of all the tax revenue that flows to the Ministry of Finance from that. Think of all the revenue that goes into government from that, that’s able to provide health care and education and all the things that we take as a foundation of a society in this province.

We all get that. I know the minister gets that. I know my colleague from upcountry gets that. I know my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed gets that. I know the

[ Page 11182 ]

Minister of Environment gets it. I know the Minister of Education gets it.

But did you know, Minister and colleagues, there are some members in this chamber who don’t understand the value of a new vehicle, of buying a new car?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Langley says: “Say it isn’t so.” Unfortunately, it is true, and I am not being partisan when I say this, because while one of these individuals is a government member, there’s also an opposition member who does not understand what happens when you buy a new vehicle — the spinoff you create, the jobs that you encourage, the local businesses that you support, the taxes that go into the Ministry of Finance when those budgetary decisions are made that allow us to provide the social programs we all depend on.

In my remarks, what I hope to do is…. I think one of the goals that the minister is trying to accomplish by bringing in these amendments, which will help to strengthen consumer confidence, which will help to create a stronger sense of certainty for many consumers, is that buying a new car is not only a good thing to do; it is a safe thing to do.

Hopefully, after the passage of this legislation, the Minister of Finance, for example, and the member for Nanaimo, one of whom last bought a new car in 1988 and the other, I think, whom last bought a new vehicle in 1992, might go, “You know what? Now that we’ve this legislation in that strengthens consumer protection….”

Now that we’ve got these new amendments in, that will give them greater confidence that when they go into either Abbotsford or Nanaimo and then they pass one of the dealerships in their community, they might now be tempted to not just drive on by but to go, “Hey, maybe it’s time to come into the 21st century,” and go see the remarkable products that the automotive sector has in this province and in this country.

As the Minister of Environment quite rightly pointed out, why should we be using 20th century technology, technology that was…? There was no Google when the Minister of Finance bought his vehicle. There were no cell phones that anyone would want to admit using today when the member for Nanaimo bought his vehicle.

[1355]

The world and technology have come a long way. You can get a hybrid car. You can get an electric vehicle. You can really show, for example, your commitments, in terms of the government and its carbon reduction print by getting a new vehicle like that.

You can show your commitments to jobs in your local community by saying: “Hey, you know what? I’m going to buy a new car that was built by someone, probably in Ontario, that has been shipped out here on our transport network, out to British Columbia, and that has been detailed by someone working in my local community. I’m creating jobs, and I’m supporting our economy and contributing significant taxes to the Finance Ministry so that they are able to provide the services that we all rely on.”

I think that would be a great thing. I mean, I would love to see the Minister of Finance and the member for Nanaimo….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: They could go together, as my colleague says. One could see it. I can just picture it now, the two of them. And as I think all of us know, both those members are famous, or infamous, within both our caucuses, I think, for not parting with a dime lightly — being, I don’t want to say tight, but frugal.

You know what? I think the new car dealers of this province would love it if they were able to say: “You know what? As a result of this legislation, we sold two new cars to two members of this House who were a little skeptical about whether or not they should buy a new car.”

To help further convince them in their decision-making, and maybe get them to the point, I’d like to talk a little bit about some of the sections in this bill and exactly what those sections will allow.

For example, the minister mentioned the progressive enforcement tools, the increase in penalties and timely resolution of disputes. I think those are important. Those are important issues that need to be addressed. Those are the kinds of amendments that I think we are looking for and are looking forward to at committee stage into getting more detail on. There’s an opportunity for the minister, in his answers, to help convince our colleagues that a new car should be in their future.

The bill has received a lot of support across the industry. It’s received the support of the registrar. Now, just so that people are aware, it used to be in governments, and now it is self-regulating outside of government, but it does have a strong regulatory framework. These amendments will see further powers transferred to the registrar and the strengthened regulatory framework.

It’s been endorsed by the registrar, the motor dealers industry, the Automotive Retailers Association, the New Car Dealers Association. All have been supportive of the changes that are being proposed in this piece of legislation.

The amendments will strengthen the case for consumers purchasing vehicles from licensed dealers, salespersons and licensed businesses. It builds on what’s already been in place. We have had good legislation in this province for a very long time.

One of the aspects of this bill that’s important was brought in, in 1983, and that is the compensation fund. The customer compensation fund is capped at $20,000. That is there so if there is an issue and a problem, consumers have access to be able to get some of that — as a

[ Page 11183 ]

way to look at a loss, for example, that may not be due to their fault — if it comes under the legislation and if there’s an issue with the dealership and things aren’t quite the way they were supposed to have been.

That will be one of the areas that I will look for the minister to address, because that $20,000 cap doesn’t rise. I’m wondering as to why that would be. I’d like to know, for example: is it because there has not been a significant increase in the need to access that particular fund, or the types of disputes have been such that there has not been an inflationary increase or any significant increase in costs being awarded?

[1400]

I want to make sure that people aren’t losing. The initial fund was brought in for $20,000. That covered the cost of when there was a dispute and a claims settlement. Over time, those things can change. So I’d like some clarification around that at committee stage.

Another

section of the act that is important…. This is something that I think many communities have had to deal with. While it doesn’t deal specifically, it does start to expand enforcement tools in some of the areas where we sometimes get complaints in communities — for example, curbers, as they are popularly called. This bill doesn’t fully deal with that, but it does start to take some steps in that area. For example, it creates three new categories of licensees.

One of the critical ones under there are wholesalers who sell used vehicles to dealers, broker agents and broker representatives. Currently wholesalers are not legally obligated to disclose the history of used vehicles to licensed dealers. That, I think, is a significant change, because quite frankly, I think the public does want to know where their vehicle comes from. Certainly, I think that dealers want to know where their vehicle is coming from, particularly as we see the significant change that’s occurred.

It’s very much related to fluctuations in the dollar, with the greater ability to sell a car from Canada down in the United States and a car from the United States up here in Canada. Of course, that’s related to the ebb and flow of the relationship between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar. The bottom line is this: that will be an important change that’s part of this bill and something that we’re looking forward to exploring further in committee stage, as to how that will work.

Some of the other areas where there is expanded administrative enforcement…. This is what I was talking about. It increases the ability to tackle curbers, businesses that sell vehicles without the required licence. Currently the registrars themselves have admitted that they have few tools to be able to deploy against curbers under the current legislation and that what options there are, are either ineffective or impractical.

This legislation will start to change that. They can issue a ticket of $288 under the Offence Act. Fines levied by courts, for example, and other tools are available. This act will help to, I think, deal with some of the impacts around curbers. Again, those are some of the areas that we will want to talk about at committee stage.

In all, what this does is it modernizes the act. By the very fact that we all want to ensure that consumers have stronger legislation, that consumers have legislation that protects their interests, I think that this bill is supported, has broad-based support. It’s a reason why I think all of us in this House can support it. At the end of the day, as I said, hopefully, some members in our respective caucuses will now feel a stronger sense of confidence so that when they decide that their vehicles, as ancient as they are, need to be replaced, they will go and get a new vehicle.

I note that I probably have spoken for about 25 minutes, and I probably have about five minutes. Oh, I have ten minutes left.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, oh. Obviously a time of true confessions. The minister has an ’85 Fiero. Well, Minister, hopefully, I’ve been able to make the case to you that this is improved legislation and that you are….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Powered by natural gas. This legislation will hopefully convince you, too, that an ’85….

[1405]

We may actually now have members in this House who were not born when you bought that car, Minister. That is saying something. So if we’re talking antiquated technology….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Exactly.

Hon. Speaker, before….

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, please.

M. Farnworth: I can see the Speaker probably wanting me to get back to the bill.

I think I’ve made the comments and remarks that I want to on this particular piece of legislation. This is legislation that does strengthen consumer protection. It is good for the province. It has broad-based support. It will be supported by this side of the House.

I look forward to comments from other members of the chamber.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 9, the Motor Dealer Amendment Act. On a lighter note, I want to begin by thanking the member opposite, of course, for his support and encouragement of people to buy new

[ Page 11184 ]

vehicles and his very sage advice to some members of this House that they should take this to heart and buy new vehicles themselves. But thinking about the people he is referring to, it’s more wishful thinking than anything.

More seriously, the act makes a much-needed change to the automotive sales sector and brings increased trust, transparency and accountability to the motor vehicle marketplace. It addresses important regulatory gaps in the supply chain that will benefit consumers as well as industry professionals.

This is an industry that is an integral part of the economic success of our province. B.C.’s motor vehicle sales sector employs thousands across the province, including many people in my constituency. Individuals, families and businesses expect that dealers will provide a safe product in a fair and transparent manner, and professional salespeople expect that everyone in the industry will play by the same rules. Increasingly, trust, transparency and accountability in the marketplace for motor vehicles will build upon the professionalism that is the key to this sector.

Bill 9 will accomplish this by making a number of important changes to the regulatory regime currently in place. Firstly, the bill will expand and is regulated and licensed under the Motor Dealer Act to include used vehicle wholesalers and broker agents who act on behalf of consumers when purchasing vehicles.

As it stands, vehicle wholesalers are unlicensed so have no legal obligation to disclose the history of vehicles when selling to dealers. Additionally, brokers and representatives also remain unlicensed. This means that there has been nothing in place to prohibit these groups from receiving money from both buyers and sellers, which would, of course, put them in a clear conflict of interest and undermine the integrity of the vehicle marketplace.

Motor dealers invest significant resources into their businesses, and their salespeople put professional reputation on the line when making a sale. Having other groups that are part of the same supply chain but not subject to the same regulation is simply unfair, and it threatens to undermine trust within the sector. Consumers expect all groups to be held accountable and relay accurate information about what they’re selling. Bringing them under the same regulation governing the rest of the sector is going to ensure that they do just that.

Finally, a strict prohibition against the hiring of unlicensed persons to sell vehicles will be implemented. This ensures that all sellers in the marketplace operate under the same set of rules. In addition to bringing these unlicensed groups under regulation, this bill is going to strengthen enforcement measures currently on the books. It will establish new administrative penalties, compliance orders and undertakings to improve the ability of the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority of B.C. to enforce the Motor Dealers Act.

[1410]

These measures are going to help our province’s enforcement bodies increase fairness and accountability in this important marketplace. The funds received from these new administrative penalties will be put into a consumer advancement fund that this bill will establish. The resources of this fund will be used to promote consumer and industry education. This way, all parties in the motor vehicle marketplace understand how the industry works and the regulations in place.

Additionally, the bill will deal with red tape surrounding the fund. By transferring oversight of the consumer compensation fund from government to the Vehicle Sales Authority, government time and taxpayers’ dollars will be saved by cutting inefficiencies and redundancies.

Regulators will also be granted the authority to establish and enforce a code of professional conduct for motor dealers. This will enhance and support the professionalism of the vehicle sales industry.

We are making these changes after extensive consultation with stakeholders in the industry across the province. British Columbia’s Vehicle Sales Authority, the registrar of motor dealers, the New Car Dealers Association and the Automotive Retailers Association all agree. They all agree that establishing a regulatory regime that increases protection for consumers and accountability in the marketplace will benefit all parties.

Establishing regulation that will increase trust, transparency and fairness within the motor sales industry will give consumers and their families peace of mind.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 9, the Motor Dealer Amendment Act.

It is an important decision that people make, the vehicle that they drive. Many people take the time to do research on what they want, looking into the size, the brand, the style, the efficiency, the mileage, the safety rating. When families visit motor dealers, we want to ensure they are not going to be taken advantage of and can buy in confidence.

This act will add more certainty for consumers when purchasing a vehicle. We are increasing protections for motor vehicle buyers both physically and financially. This bill will also build on the professionalism of the sector.

As an unlicensed group, wholesalers have not had a legal obligation to disclose vehicle histories when selling vehicles to dealers. There’s been nothing in place to prohibit broker agents from receiving money from both the buyer and the seller, which puts them in a conflict of interest.

The proposed changes will help ensure consumers are getting what they pay for when they buy a vehicle. Among the proposed changes is the expansion of who is

[ Page 11185 ]

regulated and licensed under the act. New groups who will be regulated and licensed include used vehicle wholesalers and broker agents who act on behalf of consumers when purchasing a vehicle.

We have consulted with stakeholders in the industry to draft the proposed changes. These include the New Car Dealers Association, the Automotive Retailers Association, the Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association and the Vehicle Sales Authority.

In addition to expanding who is regulated and licensed under the act, administrative penalties, compliance orders and undertakings will be added to the current administrative enforcement options. This will improve the ability of the Vehicle Sales Authority of B.C. to address contraventions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

This legislation includes the creation of a new consumer advancement fund. This fund will receive payments from the administrative penalties under the Motor Dealer Act. This will be used to promote consumer and industry education.

This bill will provide for the transfer of oversight for the customer compensation fund from government to the Vehicle Sales Authority. This will save government time and expense in managing the fund.

This bill also enhances fairness and transparency by modernizing and clarifying provisions. This is for service notices and orders under the act, the publishing of licensing and enforcement decisions and reconsiderations of enforcement actions by the regulator.

We are also providing regulation-making authority to establish and enforce a code of professional conduct for motor dealers. This further supports a responsible and professional vehicle sales industry.

[1415]

All these changes are reducing red tape and making things easier for British Columbians. These changes will help protect British Columbians and their families and also protect an industry that is integral to the economic success of this province.

I’m pleased to see that industry stakeholders have noted their support. For example, Ian Christman, registrar of motor dealers, said:

“Consumers are entitled to protection and to peace of mind when buying a motor vehicle. This includes being able to hold any person who is in the motor vehicle supply chain accountable if they have knowledge about a car’s history and may influence the purchasing decision of a consumer. They should be required to relay truthful and accurate information, act honestly and with proper disclosures, and not take advantage of a consumer’s ignorance or frailties.”

This bill provides those protections to consumers so they can make the right decision for their families. This bill builds on the professionalism of the motor dealer sector and ensures that consumers will not be taken advantage of. Knowing the history of the car you are buying is important. Being fully aware of this type of information will help protect consumers.

This bill will also expand the scope of current protections to previously unlicensed areas and help ensure that the industry is fair, accessible and efficient. We want brokers and wholesalers to be properly regulated and held to the same standards and level of accountability that new car and truck dealers are held to.

I’m pleased to see that this bill will address important regulatory gaps and protect consumers. That is why I support Bill 9, the Motor Dealer Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, I call on the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to close the debate.

Hon. M. Morris: Listening to my critic across the way there earlier, I’m sure we’re going to see some nice new, shiny vehicles, perhaps, in the parking lot in the days to come and some good used vehicles with a verified history available for people out there in consumer land.

I move the second reading of Bill 9, the Motor Dealer Amendment Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 7.

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. S. Bond: I’m very pleased to make second reading comments about the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will likely have comments to make as well.

One thing we recognize is that our province’s economy is strong. It is continuing to grow, and we are expecting a wide range of job openings in various occupations over the next decade. More than 78 percent of these job openings will require some form of post-secondary education, and 44 percent of the jobs will be in the skilled trades

[ Page 11186 ]

and technical occupations. Approximately 13 percent of the job openings will be for trade occupations in British Columbia.

We must ensure that British Columbians have the skills they need to be first in line for these jobs as our economy continues to grow. Participating in the industry training and apprenticeship system is one of the best ways that we can help them, help British Columbians, on that pathway. That’s why we launched our British Columbia skills-for-jobs blueprint. We committed, also, to implementing all 29 recommendations outlined in the McDonald report, aimed at strengthening B.C.’s trades-training system.

[1420]

As part of that commitment, we need to strengthen the legislation that puts the Industry Training Authority in a position to more effectively manage the system. That’s what these changes to the current Industry Training Authority Act will do.

The Industry Training Authority Act was enacted in 2003. It has not been reviewed or amended since it was first brought into force. Since that time, the Industry Training Authority has made some incredible achievements. The total number of apprentices has more than doubled. Over 160,000 new apprentices have registered in an apprenticeship program. Over 70,000 journeyperson credentials have been issued. The ITA has now refocused. It has an approach that will be better supportive of industry demands.

Recently 11 sector advisory groups have been established to ensure that we are aligning our trades-training programs with industry needs. There have also been 15 apprentice advisers, hired by the Industry Training Authority, six with an aboriginal focus.

Through our skills-for-jobs blueprint, we are shifting how education and training is funded and aligned in the province, specifically to meet the needs for in-demand jobs. Today our funding investments in priority trades-training programs match those trades occupations most in demand.

We are also increasing the Industry Training Authority’s budget by nearly $8 million, announced by the Finance Minister in our recent budget, to help deliver more youth programs, in particular, over the next three years. We believe that by realigning our funding to the in-demand jobs in our province and also by adding new investment, we will make sure that young people are supported as they try out a trade, as they learn the skills they need to succeed and to go on to trade-related careers.

Now, more than ever, we have a trades-training system that is aligned to meet the needs of industry. After 12 years in operation, it is the right time to update the current legislation and make any changes that are necessary to ensure the ITA has the authority to best manage the system. The current act sets out the Industry Training Authority’s regulatory powers and responsibilities with respect to trades training in B.C. This includes the power to designate trainers, set program standards, and issue or remove credentials.

We heard, through the extensive consultation which informed the McDonald report recommendations, that system stakeholders were confused over the ITA’s roles and responsibilities and, most particularly, that industry wanted a more meaningful

part in the planning and decision-making process.

The amendments being proposed today will, we believe, address those concerns. The changes will confirm the ITA’s roles, responsibilities and authorities through the addition of a purpose statement, which is absent in the current legislation. This will provide the Industry Training Authority with the mechanism to engage stakeholders in multi-year strategic planning and in implementation to achieve government’s economic priorities and objectives and, at the same time, hold the ITA accountable to any actions laid out in the strategic plan.

The changes will assure industry members of their valued role and contribution to the trades system, by adding a new requirement that the ITA engage with industry members and make them part of the decision-making and strategic planning process.

Ultimately, these changes will strengthen what already works in B.C.’s trades-training system, a system that is industry-driven and that can respond quickly to regional training needs. By making these changes, we will enhance our province’s ability to train the skilled workers that we need to support and grow our economy even further.

With that and with those initial comments, I look forward to the comments of my colleagues and to further discussion that we will have on the proposed amendments.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join in the debate around Bill 7, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act.

[1425]

As the minister says, what Bill 7 largely does is to flesh out a number of the other recommendations that were put forward by Ms. McDonald in her report that she prepared in 2014. The name of the report — The Industry Training Authority and Trades Training in B.C.: Recalibrating for High Performance . That was an independent review by Ms. McDonald of trades training in the province.

What this piece of legislation will do is set out a purpose for the Industry Training Authority and its role in terms of the trades-training system. What’s quite remarkable is that we are more than a decade into this process and there never has been a purpose statement for the authority, which is pretty remarkable when you consider the important role that it plays.

This also will require the Industry Training Authority to develop and implement a multi-year strategic plan to set its priorities and its targets as per government. While

[ Page 11187 ]

there’s been talk about a business plan and there’s talk about financial plans in the existing legislation, there never has been the discussion about a strategic plan to this. It’s probably a good thing that we’re getting to having a strategic plan. It requires the ITA to engage stakeholders for advice and recommendations on the development of that plan. We’ll get a clarification from the minister. I’m sure we’ll get this when we get to the committee stage.

The legislation talks about ensuring that there is consultation with industry. Now, Ms. McDonald, in her recommendations, is clear that she is of the view that industry should be all-encompassing and include organized labour in that category. So I’ll look forward to the minister clarifying that she sees organized labour as a full partner as part of that industry umbrella and, as such, a full partner in the consultation process. I’m sure the minister will be happy to answer that in the committee stage. Then it provides for some other minor updates.

As I said, the reason for this, the intent, the purpose for this piece of legislation is — I’m not sure that it completes, and we’ll talk about that when we get to committee stage as well — certainly to add some pieces that fall under the recommendations that Ms. McDonald put forward in her report.

I guess that part of what becomes important is: why did we ever get to Ms. McDonald’s report? What was the impetus and the requirement that government felt and others felt in order to put this report in place? What we know is that the road was pretty rocky for the first decade of training in this province after the B.C. Liberals took power.

There had been in place ITAC, which was put in place in 1997, 1998. It was an entity that was, most of us believe, reasonably successful. It was also an entity, it was very clear, that had four partners at the table. It had industry at the table, it had labour at the table, it had educators at the table, and it had government at the table. Together, they moved forward trades training in this province — and with quite a bit of success, I believe. If you go back and you look at the record, you’ll see that training was going quite well.

There was significant investment in training at that time. Probably upwards of 120 people, at its high point, worked for ITAC in regional offices around the province. It had counsellors in place that worked very closely with apprentices. It was a very hands-on approach. As such, it was pretty effective and had industry pretty much engaged, I believe, in that process. But what happened was that in 2004 the government of the day made the decision to scrap ITAC and to create the ITA, in its first incarnation, in 2004.

One of the first things that the ITA did is it became an industry-only body. There was no more labour at the table. There were no more educators at the table. It was industry and government who were at the table. Quite honestly, for the next decade, I believe it failed. It failed right through till about 2013, 2014 — right through till about when Ms. McDonald produced her recommendations and government started to act on those recommendations.

[1430]

It failed because it just was not…. It dropped staff. At one point, it went from that 120 staff down to about a dozen people working for the entity. It then climbed back up to about 50 or so folks — about 25 in admin and about 25 in service delivery. That’s the staffing levels.

It eliminated those counsellors, and it eliminated compulsory trades. Those all disappeared. So there no longer was the compunction on the part of industry to have to have Red Seal plumbers and Red Seal electricians. They could take a standard — I think it was the certificate of qualification — that was a little bit less and, in fact, accept that.

The result was that while we saw a lot of people coming in and starting trades training programs, there wasn’t a very good completion rate — not a very good completion rate at all.

We also saw, in areas like carpentry, where we’d had Red Seal carpenters who were entirely skilled up to do all aspects of carpentry, that those positions started to be replaced by folks like framers. All of a sudden, you were training somebody up to frame a house — not to be a carpenter, but to frame a house — and that was a fundamentally different skill. There is no correlation between the carpenter and the framer. They are different people doing different jobs. There are extremely different skill sets and levels of expertise and skill there, but that’s where things went.

The challenge there was that…. We saw Red Seals being devalued when you started to take compulsory trades out, when you started to see these other skill sets, when you saw this adoption of these other approaches, when you saw no ratios of apprentices to journeypersons on worksites, when that all kind of fell by the wayside.

The result of that is a lot of trouble in the trades training field. The only area that was still showing success were those trades that were driven exclusively by, primarily, the building trades. That’s because they maintained a model that was very similar to what had existed under ITAC, where they still had counsellors in place, where they assured that before they brought apprentices forward through the foundation programs for apprenticeship, they in fact had employment placements for them. That was part of the deal — that their employers had placements.

One of the big challenges, I know — the minister and I have discussed this before — is the challenge for the sector today: the takeup by employers to open up placement opportunities for apprentices to be able to get their full apprenticeships completed. We know that’s a problem.

It wasn’t a problem for the labour-driven trades programs, because one of their principles was that they didn’t accept the apprentice unless they knew the path to com-

[ Page 11188 ]

plete the apprenticeship and had lined up the employer as well. They had a much higher completion rate — upwards of 90 percent completion rate.

On the other hand, from the time of ITAC, when the ITA went into place, in the first four years, the completion rates dropped by 40 percent under the ITA. They climbed back up later, but they dropped. So this was a huge, huge problem.

Of course, the thing we know is that…. This may be one of the things that the Premier’s claims around LNG…. LNG may have, if it has done nothing else, in some ways saved training in the province, because we know that when the major proponents, whether it was the Shells or the Chevrons or those companies, came to British Columbia early on in their exploration, one of the first things they did was sit down with the potential companies and with the unions and with government who would be building their projects.

The conversation they wanted to have was: do you actually have a skilled workforce in British Columbia that can build these projects?

[1435]

What was discovered, of course, is that, yeah, there’s a workforce here that could build one, maybe a little bit more than that, but not entirely…. Certainly, if there had been anything like the kind of extraordinary claims of the government around LNG and around what would be built, that wasn’t going to be built — six, seven, eight, nine, ten projects, however many LNG projects we should have under construction now based on the government’s claims.

Obviously, that would have been an issue. Those companies, the Shells and people like that, said to the government: “You need to fix this, because your training program is a mess, and we can’t get the people that we want.” That led the government to respond, particularly when those companies also said: “We’re pretty comfortable with what the unions do in training and how they train people up at the end of the day, but there aren’t enough of them, and there’s not enough people coming through their system.”

So the government moved. The government moved and restructured. Some people would say they took the training program away from Phil Hochstein and gave it to people who knew what they were doing. Part of that included bringing labour back to the table, because there was a recognition — and Ms. McDonald recognizes this in her report — that labour initiatives around training were extremely effective and that the advantage would be to bring them back in, to bring the educators back in, to frame a structure that looked a lot like 1998 and ITAC in terms of the people who were at the table and part of the conversation.

That’s, in fact, what started to occur, and that system started to shift. We’ve seen that, and we have seen improvements, but we had a lost decade there — a lost decade for training in this province. And there was a scramble to catch up. The training is not just in the trades. There was a heavy trades focus, obviously, when everybody was preoccupied with LNG a couple of years ago. There was a heavy trades focus, because people were looking at the construction, primarily, of pipelines and how that would proceed.

Now we have a situation where we’ve seen some movement, and we’re now seeing a system that makes, certainly, somewhat more sense. It still has a long way to go. It still does have a long way to go, and there still is a fair amount of work to be done. When you look at the blueprint for jobs, when you look at those initiatives, there needs to be a conversation, certainly and absolutely, looking at the purposes here, along with the blueprint for jobs and for training, with real initiatives around diversification.

I think we have, the last time I checked — and the number, I know, changes; it’s a bit of a moving target — about 70-odd trades or so that are approved for the blueprint and for post-secondary institutions, trades in a variety of areas where they can, in fact, invest in seats and be part of the 25 percent of the grant that now is targeted on the blueprint.

This is a case where, for people who wouldn’t understand, you have the grant that comes in to the post-secondary institution. The government has said a significant portion, evolving over time, 25 percent, needs to go to training, primarily, and qualified trades, qualified skills, can fit within that 25 percent. It was very heavily focused on skilled trades, building trades — that we understand —and health care, initially. It’s becoming a little more flexible now, and it should continue to become more flexible as more trades and more skills move into that field.

We see it with some computer sciences now, though there’s a lot of that in schools already, but certainly, we’re seeing it in some of those areas. There needs to be probably be more work done there around the blueprint and what that looks like.

The challenge that we see with this is really going to be to put, I think, some focus on what is in the bill. When we look at the bill itself…. As I said, the first

section of the bill talks very specifically about purpose and about the act laying out the purpose. If you look at Bill 7 and you look at the act, it lays out the purposes of the authority. It’s not long, and it’s not an onerous list.

[1440]

There are five purposes laid out in the legislation:

“(

a) to manage and support an industry training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia; (

b) to ensure that the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (

a) meets the Province’s need for skilled workers; (

c) to work with the government to achieve the government’s objectives respecting the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (a); (

d) to promote industry training programs, including by encouraging employers and individuals to participate in those programs;”

[ Page 11189 ]

And (e), other things as the minister may, from time to time, prescribe.

So that’s the purposes — pretty general, pretty generic, largely, leaves it pretty wide open. The real question here…. I hope we’ll have an opportunity to have some of this discussion when we get to committee stage — an opportunity to think through and talk through some of these matters — about what managing and supporting an industry training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia looks like.

That gets back to the consultation about how broad that’s going to be, about that purpose, about how those organizations are going to be involved, how labour plays a bigger role, how educators play a bigger role, how the conversation goes, where money comes from. The bill also changes some things around money, and we’ll talk about that in a bit. But that’s pretty important. We need to talk about what that looks like longer term — what managing and supporting that system looks like.

Meeting provincial needs for skilled workers. That’s an important conversation, because the conversation then becomes: how do you do that assessment? Is it going to be the ITA’s job to do that assessment? Is it the government who will do it and provide that direction to the ITA as to what the demands are? Will it be coming from industry exclusively? Will other sources be able to contribute to that? Will labour market development agreements be used in order to go out and highlight some areas where there may be some innovative approaches that we can take that might require some skill training, that might require us to do more here?

When we talk about meeting those needs, it’s going to be very interesting to see how the government determines to assess those needs, because we know that everybody will be a little bit different. Everybody will have a bit different list. Some people will be strong advocates for their particular sectors. Other people will maybe take a step back from their interests and look at the bigger picture of British Columbia overall.

There will be significant differences between what happens in urban areas in terms of demand and, potentially, what happens in rural and outlying areas. There will be significant questions about First Nations, training for First Nations, the role of the ITA in providing training for First Nations and how that will occur. That will raise the question, of course, about consultation. It says government is to achieve their objectives. Point (

c) is “to work with the government to achieve the government’s objectives respecting the industry training and apprenticeship system.”

There are also stakeholders, clearly, and there will be significant questions about how those stakeholders are engaged. First Nations — if they’re going to play a role in the ITA, it’s going to be a very interesting conversation as to how those training initiatives evolve with First Nations and how First Nations are engaged in that process. There’s lots of work to be done there. We’ll have to see how that evolves out of the purposes. We’ll get a chance, hopefully, to talk about that as we try to dig down a little bit on the purposes of the authority and what it looks to achieve.

Point (

d) is “to promote industry training programs, including by encouraging employers and individuals to participate in those programs.” Encouraging employers to participate is probably the biggest single challenge today. It’s getting employers to step up and take apprentices on and know that, when you take an apprentice on every year, they’re going to go back into the classroom for a period of time to do some classroom work. You’re going to have employees who maybe aren’t accomplishing everything you would like in their first couple of years, but they get there, and at the end of it, you get a fully qualified, skilled tradesperson or skilled person who is working for you.

[1445]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The challenge is that not enough employers are taking up that opportunity, taking up that challenge. It’s not happening. Employers aren’t doing it in the numbers that are necessary. The incentives that are being offered, at this point, from government are not enough to get employers to step up and to do that.

That becomes a significant problem, because you can’t make the apprenticeship system work if you don’t have those employers who are at the table saying: “I’ll take those apprentices.” This will raise challenges. As we look at how to encourage that involvement, this is going to raise challenges for government to solve this problem.

One of the issues that’s apparent…. In some travel around the province and talking with employers, I’ve heard this on a number of occasions from employers who in fact are engaged in the apprenticeship system, who are taking apprentices in, who are doing their job to prepare people, to mentor, to have the journeymen working with the apprentices and making this work.

The challenge they have is that far too often…. I’ve heard this on numerous occasions. What happens is they get a couple of years down the road of that apprenticeship, and then their competitor down the road — who is not participating in the apprenticeship program and may be a bigger operator, in some cases — scoops that employee and basically poaches that employee away for four or five bucks an hour more. Good for the worker.

The worker says: “Hey, I can pick up another four or five bucks. I can finish this apprenticeship another time, but I need the money.” And they jump, for a few dollars more.

You then have this apprenticeship that’s been stalled mid-term — not good, in terms of wanting to have skilled Red Seal journeymen coming out of the system. You have an employer — who was doing everything they could

[ Page 11190 ]

do to be supportive of the apprenticeship program and working hard to in fact make that work, including engaging apprentices — all of a sudden feeling like they got undermined because some guy down the road poached their employee, and they’re frustrated.

I’ve heard a couple of them say: “I don’t know if I’m going to do this again, because this isn’t the way it’s supposed to work.” They’re right. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Then you’ve got the guy down the road who poached the employee and who’s not playing by the rules. Instead, what they’re doing, frankly, is letting somebody else pay the bill to train their workers, and they’re not playing at all.

When you try to get at this issue around purpose in that, in terms of promoting industry training programs, including encouraging employers and individuals to participate in those programs, it may take a little bit more than just encouragement to make that happen. But it’s an important purpose. We’ll get to see.… I look forward to the minister’s comments in committee stage about how she believes that’s going to work.

What you have is a situation where the purposes are pretty broad. They talk generally to a series of important items. It’s important to put those purposes in place. I think we’re just going to need to try to clarify what they mean, and what the minister’s view is about what they’ll mean, in terms of real and direct application.

The other changes that are interesting are in

section 6 as amended, and 6(5) says:

“The authority must, on or before December 31 of each year, submit for approval by the minister a 3 year strategic plan that sets out the following in relation to the authority’s next 3 fiscal years:

“(

a) how the authority proposes to advance each of the purposes referred to in

section 2.1; (

b) the process the authority proposes to use to engage stakeholders to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to provide to the authority advice and recommendations in relation to the strategic plan and the advancement of each of the purposes referred to in

section 2.1; (

c) other matters the minister may require.”

[1450]

This strategic plan, as I said, is a step forward. It replaces a business plan. Now, the challenge here is that while it says the authority has got to produce this report by the end of the calendar year for the minister, and it does say that, for the authority, part of the plan has to include some discussion around stakeholder engagement, to provide recommendations and advice.

It will be important to clarify who the stakeholders are. We know it’s industry. As I said, Ms. McDonald, in her report…. When she identified industry, she recommends — it’s a clear recommendation in her report — that industry must include organized labour and workers as well.

If I assume that the minister is going to concur with Ms. McDonald, then it will be: okay, well, what does that mean, and how, in fact, is organized labour, particularly, playing a role in this? How are others getting to play a role in this? How are educators getting to play a role in this?

There may be others. There may be others that make eminent sense. It also may make eminent sense around that plan in terms of implementing the purposes, assuming the strategic plan is the way that some of the questions that I’ve asked will get answered. It’s through the strategic planning process: how that’s going to engage and who’s going to be engaged with this.

The other thing that’s interesting about this, though, is it says that the “authority must submit to the minister, at the times specified by the minister and in a form approved by the minister” the strategic plan and that it needs to consult industry stakeholders and other stakeholders the minister may specify. I’ll be interested to hear who the minister thinks those other stakeholders are that she’s going to specify.

It also does make one change. In the current legislation, I believe it says 90 days — that 90 days after the fiscal year starts, this report has to be released. This legislation makes a change to that. It changes that and, essentially, is more silent on that matter. It assumes the minister will release it, but it’s not entirely clear about what the requirements are — and certainly nothing as specific as the 90 days in the current act. We’ll have to see what the thinking was for, in fact, making those changes.

Another

section that is kind of interesting is that if you look at the act itself, in subsection (10), it talks about where money comes from.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

S. Simpson: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

S. Simpson: It talks about where dollars will come from. Under the act, it’s quite restrictive about where the training authority, the ITA, can get its money from. This legislation will change that.

It says “money received by the authority from any source may be retained by the authority to be used and dealt with for its purposes.” So it does change where the dollars will come from.

It’s going to be interesting. I’m very curious to know from the minister what her expectations are about what those sources of funds may be that might come, what the value of those sources might be, what the minister believes they would be appropriately used for and whether there are certain items that some money may or may not be appropriately used for and other areas where, in fact, money can be appropriately used.

We have the purpose of the legislation, which is very broad and very generic. It really does open the question…. It’s a good thing that it’s here, and I think there is an argument to keep it fairly broad and fairly generic. I’m not quibbling about that.

[ Page 11191 ]

But somewhere in the conversation, it becomes important to put more meat on those bones and to be more specific, particularly in this place and probably in committee stage. I think that the ITA and certainly the interested stakeholders are going to want to hear from the minister what her thinking is about those broad purposes and objectives and what she believes that means in terms of the work of the ITA moving forward.

[1455]

Then, of course, the three-year strategic plan, which is a new piece as well — what her belief is about the complexity of that detail, what her expectations are about what will and won’t be in the plan and what her expectation is about how that plan will evolve, how it will be processed, who will be involved in that conversation and, possibly, what their involvement will be and what that begins to look like. Those become important issues.

Then there are questions about timing — when we all get to see that strategic plan and when that might be in the yearly cycle — and then questions about money. Questions about money are always important questions by anybody’s standards. We’re always happy to talk about money.

As we move forward on this legislation, as we move forward on the training authority generally, we see some other challenges that are in front of the government to make the ITA successful, to make it more successful than it is. These are challenges that we have seen now in two major initiatives that have been advanced by the government in the last year.

The first one was last year. We adopted legislation in the summer session, where we had the quick summer session, around a project development agreement for Pacific NorthWest LNG. In that, we saw very little, if anything, that talked about issues like apprenticeships, and certainly nothing that talked about ratios, something every other province has. When other provinces put these initiatives forward, almost without exception, they have ratios saying, “If you have X amount of journeymen on a job, you’ll have X amount of apprentices on the job” — formulas that work.

Those are the same formulas that are in collective agreements in British Columbia for the building trades, certainly, and I believe for other unions. They have formulas that say X amount of journeymen, X amount of apprentices — usually in the 20 percent, 25 percent range of apprentices. But there was nothing in that project development agreement, nothing in that agreement at all.

Now, there are those who will argue: “Well, there’s a limit to what the government should impose on the private sector, in terms of those companies and what they do.” There might be some argument for that. But understand you’re giving them what was an extremely good deal — that for a whole range of reasons, which is a different debate, they’re not taking advantage of — to exploit a finite resource that belongs to all British Columbians.

The question about ratios and apprenticeships and other benefits that should come to us from those agreements…. That’s where that plan failed, and that’s one of the reasons that we didn’t vote for that agreement, because of the terrible shortcomings in terms of anything that put British Columbia first.

Now we see again in Site C — the Site C agreement that was signed for the major civil work, the agreement that has been put in place around that work — a very similar situation. There is nothing around jobs, certainly around British Columbians. There’s nothing there around apprenticeship commitments in any meaningful way. There’s certainly, in other matters, nothing around local procurement.

We know the partnership that we always talk about with First Nations. It seems that most of the debate around Site C is in the courts with the First Nations — as they fight it out in court, at this point, or on picket lines and protest lines — not about partnership. Clearly, it’s failed there too.

It raises the question: if you’re going to make the Industry Training Authority work and if you’re going to make the new purposes in that work, then those other pieces of what government does, particularly in the expenditure of government dollars, taxpayer dollars, for major projects, capital projects and other major investments…? When you do that, there’s got to be some carrots and sticks here to make sure that those companies who are successful bidders and those companies who desire to bid are, in fact, going to create those opportunities.

[1500]

Now, there has been some work done on that in the last year by the government. I know that. I know the minister is aware of this issue, but we have to see action. Being aware and seeing substantive action are two different things. We’re going to have to see how that all plays itself out as we move forward.

As this bill comes forward, I think what we need to do — and what we desire to do at this point, really — is say that this is a bill that we will support. It’s a bill that does some things that need to be done. It’s a bill that deals with some fundamental flaws in the ITA, like not having a purpose or a strategic plan. Those things need to occur. This bill does take us steps down the road to accomplishing that.

But it raises just about as many questions as it answers, and we’ll have to see how we proceed with that and how that moves forward. We’ll be looking forward to having more debate about this as we proceed and to having more opportunity, particularly in committee stage, to get the minister to answer a number of these questions.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I look forward to hearing members on the other side as well as our side continue this debate.

L. Throness: Well, it’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 7 today, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act.

[ Page 11192 ]

It’s a pleasure to follow the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who mentioned phrases about the bill like “this element was a good thing” and “that element was a step forward” and “the opposition will support the bill.” I think that shows that we can be collaborative in this House. We don’t always have to be head to head. It’s also a tribute, I think, to the minister and the government for putting forth legislation that can win such high praise from the opposite side.

I’d like to begin by talking a little bit about the ITA, the Industry Training Authority, itself and then highlight some of the great things that are going on in my riding regarding trades and technical training. Then I want to talk about the bill itself and how it followed the analysis of Jessica McDonald in the McDonald report in 2014. She, of course, has moved on to much bigger and better things at B.C. Hydro.

The report was subtitled Recalibrating for High Performance , and I think that’s an appropriate subtitle. What we need from the ITA is high performance. We need better, improved performance, and that’s what this bill is designed to do.

The McDonald report offered 29 recommendations to improve trades training in B.C. The government is acting on them in part through the legislation we have before us today.

About the Industry Training Authority itself. It leads and coordinates B.C.’s skilled-trades program by working with employers, employees, industry, labour, training providers and government — all of the groups that are involved — to issue credentials and manage apprenticeships, set the program standards and increase opportunities in the trades. Indeed, there has been some success there.

The ITA has issued a total of over 65,000 certificates of qualification to journeypersons in B.C. since 2004. There are currently over 10,000 registered employer-sponsors of apprentices in B.C. There are more than 39,000 registered apprentices in the industry training system. The ITA provides more than 100 apprenticeship training programs in B.C., including almost 50 Red Seal trades.

Our government invests more than $94 million a year in industry trades and training through the Industry Training Authority. In the latest budget last week, Budget 2016, we’re increasing that funding by almost $8 million over the next three years for youth. I think that’s great. It shows that we are fully behind the ITA and behind industry and technical training in B.C.

In the background of this report, and overarching this whole discussion, is the demographic reality of our aging workforce in B.C. Over the next six years, 700,000 people are going to retire in B.C. There are only 4.6 million people in B.C., but 700,000 are going to be retiring.

[1505]

When you combine this huge number — which will create a vacuum, created by our retirees — with population growth, it is going to create a demand for new jobs and new workers. And when you think of the economic growth that is going to be accelerated by our B.C. jobs plan — which emphasizes eight different sectors of the economy, including things like agriculture and aquaculture and LNG — as we seek to maximize our intellectual capital as well as development of our natural resources, we’re going to need a lot of new workers.

That’s why we’ve already recalibrated our post-secondary education system to focus 25 percent of our spending on skilled trades and technical training, just to make sure that we’re turning out the kinds of students that are matched with our future workplace needs, students who will be happy and fulfilled with the training they’ve received. They will be ready and first in line to fill those high-paying jobs that are going to come about because of what we’re doing today.

What’s happening in Chilliwack-Hope? A lot is happening in Chilliwack-Hope. I’m sure that everyone knows that the University of the Fraser Valley is firmly ensconced, with many thousands of students, in the Fraser Valley. There’s a large facility there called the Trades and Technology Centre. I’ve toured it a number of times. Last year the minister himself toured it, the Minister of Advanced Education. He was very much impressed with what he saw there.

It’s fully equipped to teach a whole range of trades — in carpentry, heavy mechanics, electrical, plumbing, welding, auto body repair, cooking. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten. It’s a beautiful facility. It’s something for Chilliwack to be proud of, and I think it makes Chilliwack one of the top centres for trades and technical training in the valley, if not in B.C.

Our government has been behind it all the way. Last year our government gave $325,000 to buy new trades-training equipment. That followed the year earlier — $872,000 that would open up 194 new training spaces. I’m sure there will be much more to come in the future in support of trades and technical training in Chilliwack.

There’s more than that. Elsewhere in my riding, because of their success in graduating First Nations students, Seabird College — which is located on Seabird Island reserve near Agassiz, in my riding — has been partnering with UFV to combine the advantages of the cultural affinity, the cultural familiarity, of Seabird with the facilities at UFV. When I went to speak at UFV’s board of governors’ meeting before Christmas last year, the students from Seabird had cooked a meal for them. I tasted it, and it was really delicious. They’re doing a great job.

There’s partnering going on. Our government is behind that too. In February of this year, just a few weeks ago, we announced that students of two programs at Seabird College would see an injection of funding into the training they’re taking, in the form of two project-based training programs, amounting to over $100,000.

[ Page 11193 ]

The camp-cook training and basic security training programs are already underway. They will get a $94,000 and a $14,000 boost, respectively, from both federal and provincial coffers.

I’m going to continue doing whatever I can so that we can train the most underutilized and youngest workforce in B.C. That is the First Nations workforce. I have 36 First Nations in my riding, so I’m privileged to be able to support that and to work as hard as I can to get more of that.

But that’s not all. We have trades and technical training going on at the high school level, as well, in my riding. Last fall I had the opportunity to go out to Hope to attend the inauguration of the first welding course at Hope Secondary School, to be offered there in a mobile teaching facility that was loaned to them by Thompson Rivers University.

A dozen eager, young students were there for a ribbon-cutting ceremony. As you can imagine, the ribbon was not a ribbon made of cloth; it was made of steel. It was cut with a blowtorch, which was a fitting way to do it. The last I heard, students were averaging a score of 90 percent on their exams there, so that program has been a great success.

We’re also helping school district 33 with trades and technical training. Last year $30,000 went to the school district for secondary school apprenticeship program support, and we’re going to continue to work on that kind of thing as well.

But to the legislation, to the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act. The McDonald report offered 29 recommendations to change the ITA — that’s the Industry Training Authority — to make it a more effective organization. The ITA has since acted on 14 of those recommendations, and it’s working on the rest.

We in the government are doing our part by making three amendments here in this piece of legislation that respond in three broad ways to the recommendations in the McDonald report. First, there’s no purpose statement in the existing legislation, and so we’re going to fix that. The bill sets out before us the purpose of the ITA. It’s a five-part purpose. It’s a comprehensive purpose statement, and that’s going to confirm and solidify its role in the B.C. trades-training system.

[1510]

Second, the bill is going to require the ITA to develop and implement a multi-year strategic plan to achieve the priorities and the targets that are set for it by government. Thirdly, it’s going to require it to engage with stakeholders to provide advice and recommendations on the development and implementation of the strategic plan.

It’s very logical. It’s broad; it’s general. It will allow the ITA to move forward and to do its very best to implement what the government requires, which is to train our future workforce to make sure that we’re ready for the jobs that are going to flood out in relation to the plans that we have to grow the economy and to make B.C. a better place to live.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 7, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016. As previous speakers have pointed out and as the minister did as well, it’s an amendment act that changes an existing act. Of course, the opposition is, as the previous speaker noted, supporting the changes.

It’s a rather sparse bill. The three sections are consistent with recommendations from a 2014 government review, and they include adding a purpose statement to the existing legislation, which was pointed out — something that lays out the intention of that legislation. It updates some existing administrative components to align with other Crown corporations and government statutes. It requires the ITA to develop a multi-year plan and to engage stakeholders in doing that — so to put together a plan and talk to a number of groups to try to make the organization more effective than it has been.

These are improvements, no doubt. These come from a study that was done in 2014 by Jessica McDonald, who’s now the CEO of B.C. Hydro. It raises the question: why did government do a study in 2014? There is some history here.

The key thing to remember is our economy needs a trained workforce, trained tradespeople, if you are going to function properly. You look at jurisdictions where that is not the case, and regardless of the opportunity, businesses are constrained. They need a trained workforce.

As we speak, our economy is subject in many ways to forces that are completely beyond the control of government. Now, government likes to take credit when things are good but often recognizes, when times are challenging, that it’s beyond their control. While there are elements of our economy that are doing very, very well, there are elements of our economy that are really struggling right now.

There are 16 mines that are closed right now. That is not something that any legislator here wants. That is something that we would not have if we could change it, but we can’t. Worldwide demand for copper and coal is significantly lower than it was. Businesses react logically by closing mines, and there is nothing the government can do about it. It is completely beyond our control. If we were in power, it would be the same for us. We can’t do anything about it. That is simply how businesses work. Government doesn’t control that.

Liquefied natural gas. I have been highly critical of the hype on liquefied natural gas, but if it were economically feasible, I think that for many, many communities, it would be a good thing. But, again, government is faced with a reality that they are unable to control. There is a pricing structure that a jurisdiction of our size cannot change.

[1515]

What can government actually do? What are the things that, as legislators, we need to focus on? What we control are these things. We control a tax structure, and it needs to be predictable for businesses. It needs to be fair. We are

[ Page 11194 ]

responsible for certainty on the land base as legislators. Government, of course, bears the greatest responsibility for that. We’re responsible for infrastructure. Relevant to this bill is the importance of a trained workforce.

Tradespeople are essential for many elements of our economy. The biggest part of our economy is real estate. That’s 25 percent of the economy. You need tradespeople. Where I come from, it’s the resource industries. The resource industries are critical to our communities, and for that to work, you need tradespeople.

Now, it is only one factor, to be sure, but it is one factor that government controls. Trades programs are often hands on, of course, so we have apprenticeships as a way to give that hands-on, practical experience.

Why did government have a study of trades training in 2014, and why has it been so much of the focus of this minister? Well, for reasons…. The minister was handed some problems and has used the work of Jessica McDonald and her own ministry to try to solve some of those problems.

In 2002, we find the genesis of many of those problems. In 2002, the B.C. Liberal government dramatically changed the existing system, which had heavy union participation. It had heavy union participation — in my view, a good thing. But for many of the people that supported the B.C. Liberals, it was something to be taken out of the apprenticeship system and the trades system as far as possible.

Government changed that existing system with union participation in 2002, and they did a very poor job of it. That was what workers made clear immediately. When the changes were proposed, workers and their representatives spelled out exactly what was going to happen and, as it turned out, did happen.

Everyone brings something to the table. There’s no question that business, education leaders and government have something to contribute — but so do the workers, so do the people that are actually in charge of large elements of the training. They said that the 2002 changes very clearly were a problem, and they spoke about the problems that were created repeatedly over the years. If the people doing the work are ignored by government, then you have a predictable problem. But it wasn’t just workers that were recognizing that there was a problem.

B.C.’s Auditor General is an independent officer of the Legislature. He is not controlled by government. Or she is not controlled by government. He or she is not controlled by the opposition. He has a skilled workforce with him, and they look at issues and independently put facts in front of both government and opposition so that we can have a reasoned debate based upon an indisputable set of facts.

The Auditor General was pretty clear. It was an extensive examination of the system, looking at the B.C. Liberal plan after seven years. I think it was six or seven years of operation. I could look to the critics for any guidance. I think it was after six or seven years that the Auditor General looked at the system, so it had a fair chance to work, if it was going to.

He came up with a 60-page report. Many members have read it. Clearly, the minister will know it very, very well. I don’t think it’s unfair to characterize what this 60-page report said. It comes straight to the point. The ITA, the B.C. Liberal plan for apprenticeship training, was a mistake. It was poorly conceived. It deliberately ignored union and worker experience to the detriment of apprenticeship programs as a whole.

[1520]

The initiative from the B.C. Liberals was totally driven from an extremely narrow perspective. We all know the history. We know the individuals, who are still around, who drove that perspective. We also know that it failed. That’s what we’re here doing. We’re fixing some of the problems that were created in 2002. What did we see? What did the Auditor General say was evident when he looked at it seven years after the changes made in 2002? Well, he said this: immediately, the number of apprentices that actually completed their apprenticeship fell — fell dramatically. He also said that it cost government significantly more. So it was less successful, and it cost more.

The standards of training fell so that tradespeople often were trained in a way that they were unable to move to other jurisdictions. Without Red Seal, their credentials weren’t acceptable in other parts of Canada — like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba. A poorly thought-through initiative that we are here fixing with this legislation. Fewer completions. More costly. Lower standards.

Now, government, as I’ve said…. I fully concede that government cannot control commodity prices. In so many ways, as a small jurisdiction, we are at the whim of whatever else goes on in other parts of the world. I mean, when you look at China and you see how many people and how vast the economy is, we are, by any measure, going to be impacted by the decisions they make. We can’t control that. But we can control and get the pieces that we do control right.

Now, I see that the minister is asking to make an introduction, I assume. Whenever the minister wants to do that, I’ll yield the floor to him. So whenever he wants to make the introduction, just let me know. I’ll yield the floor for an introduction.

Hon. A. Virk: I seek permission to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: I have the pleasure of introducing two classes that are here today. In fact, they were just in my office a few moments ago. I thought I would surprise them and come in here and make an introduction. We have

[ Page 11195 ]

a number of students, who are waving up there, from the Pacific Academy, up in the northeast part of Surrey. They are here learning about democracy. They are touring these wonderful precincts and learning about the history and about what goes on in their elected House here.

Would the House please make the class from Pacific Academy very welcome.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: First, welcome.

I think that people will have a difficult time following what I say now, so I’m going to start again, if you’d like.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Or not. Okay. Maybe you’ll follow.

Anyway, having a trained workforce is something that we can control and should. In the 1990s, the apprentice completion rates were over 80 percent for apprentice programs. After the B.C. Liberal changes in 2002, with the system radically changed, the apprentice completion rates were down to almost 40 percent. Prior to 2002, unions were at the table, as they should be. So was business, as it should be. So were the educational institutions, as they should be, and so was government.

After 2002, the unions were out. The unions still participated in training on union sites, where collective agreements were used to build a skilled workforce, as far as unions could control. On union sites, completion for apprentices was above 90 percent. There are some predictable reasons for that. It’s because the workers that are doing the training and control the site want to have highly skilled colleagues. These are sisters and brothers that share pride in the work.

[1525]

The unions also invested in these apprenticeship programs in a way that government used to. There were counsellors to support apprentices, and they insisted in their contracts that there be spaces for apprentices. To work on a union site means to work on a site that usually has the ability to guarantee safe conditions. In fact, one of my colleagues here began his political career as a safety officer in the IWA.

Union activism is tied in with a safe work environment and family-supporting wages. That’s why people stayed for the three to four years in an apprenticeship. It’s because the worksite is not only supportive as you learn, but you’re safe, and you’re well paid. These are things that unions bring to the table.

The Auditor General said: “Fix the ITA.” That’s what we’re doing, partially, here with this bill. W.A.C. Bennett built a lot of things, and in my area, the area that I represent, we see them. Now, it was his son that built the Revelstoke dam. But he built Mica — these huge projects — and Revelstoke for decades was filled with workers.

Those programs, the publicly paid programs, trained a generation of workers, because the deal that W.A.C. Bennett made — either at the insistence of unions or with unions — was that people would be trained, that people would be well paid and that the worksite would be safe. So we had a generation. That’s a right-wing politician who recognizes that more and diverse experiences at the table is a good thing.

The changes to the apprenticeship program in 2002, therefore, were poorly conceived. Especially with publicly funded infrastructure programs, we should be using it to build a skilled workforce.

You saw that with B.C. Hydro for decades and decades. I just have to look in Revelstoke, and the examples are there. The people that I meet have skills that they have applied all throughout their working life, built because of how we managed our apprenticeship programs back in previous decades, prior to these changes. You saw it with Columbia Power, and all of the dams that have built a wonderful workforce. You see it with the Island Highway.

There is a way to do these things properly, and I’m pleased to see that we’re moving in a direction to fix what went so terribly wrong in 2002. I hope that part of what we do going forward is to recognize those mistakes, those ideological moves so poorly thought through, which for a decade have done damage to the economy. So kudos for fixing it. “Don’t break it in the first place” would be what I would say. Don’t break it in the first place.

If I had a wish and I could encourage a government in the future to do something, I would say that the Trans-Canada Highway…. I can imagine the Trans-Canada Highway, with a union workforce, taking the six or seven years and just going full out to properly build that highway. Divided, four-laned, it would be a magnificent engineering feat. It could build, again, a generation of workers that would go on to do things all over this place — hopefully with natural gas, hopefully with mining, hopefully with forestry — built with the participation of unions and working people.

We are supporting this bill. As I say, with the Trans-Canada, unions would insist upon apprenticeships, of course. We’re supporting the bill, because I think we see improvements here. I look forward to future improvements. As always, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak.

S. Hamilton: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 7, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act. It’s well known that there is a skills shortage here in Canada, but put simply, the retirement rate of highly skilled trade workers is exceeding the number of young people that are needed to replace them.

[1530]

However, this shortage of skilled-trades workers is not evenly spread throughout the country. For example, we know that only four provinces in Canada are expected to expand their economies in 2016. Only Nova Scotia,

[ Page 11196 ]

Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia are expected to grow their economies by more than 2 percent this year. It’s in these provinces where the shortage of skilled trades is felt the most, because labour is in higher demand.

As a matter of fact, the Conference Board of Canada predicts that British Columbia will lead the way of economic growth in Canada in 2016. It’s good news. The board also expects a strong wave of migration from other provinces that are hardest hit by the drop in commodity prices, especially in the oil industry.

People from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador are coming to British Columbia because they know where the jobs are. The Minister of Finance noted this in his last budget speech. “In the third quarter of 2015, B.C. saw the highest…level of interprovincial migration since 1995.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t resist the temptation to point out that, fortunately, this time the migration is flowing to British Columbia, as opposed to 1995, when there were people fleeing B.C. to seek opportunities in other provinces. We had a net inflow of more than 6,300 people from other regions of Canada, and more than one-third of them are from Alberta.

Looking into the future, the Conference Board of Canada is forecasting that another 20,000 people will be arriving from all parts of the country in 2016. British Columbia will certainly benefit from the influx of skilled workers in the short term, but we still face a shortage of young people choosing the trades as a career.

It is primarily the reason why government is taking the issue seriously. It’s the reason why we commissioned an independent review of the Industry Training Authority. The ITA leads and coordinates B.C.’s skilled-trades system by working with employers, employees, industry, labour, training providers and government to issue credentials, manage apprenticeships, set program standards and increase opportunities in the trades.

Since 2004, the ITA has issued a total of over 6,500 certificates of qualification to journeypersons in British Columbia, but we need to do more. The government has a core goal of positioning young people in British Columbia for the jobs of tomorrow.

To succeed in this goal, British Columbia has to ensure an optimized training system that capitalizes on the province’s full potential in planning and responding to labour needs. This was the conclusion of the final report by Jessica McDonald in 2014, and the current bill that we have before us, Bill 7, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, is addressing these concerns.

Since 2014, the ITA has completed a total of 14 McDonald report recommendations and has made significant progress on the rest of the recommendations, but the work isn’t over. The provincial government and the ITA will continue to consult with stakeholders and industry partners to implement the remaining recommendations in the McDonald report.

We must remain vigilant, because over the next 20 years, skilled trades are going to account for many of the jobs that are going to be created in the resource sector. Site C is a perfect example. It will create 10,000 construction jobs over the life of the project. This is not something that is far off in the future. Construction of the Site C clean energy project has been underway for several months now.

Construction crews have been working at the dam site, building access roads to the dam site, upgrading public roads and preparing the site for construction, and up to 1,600 people are moving into that site in a worker camp. There are currently more than 160 workers on site, and this number will continue to increase over the coming months and years. We expect $3.2 billion to be added to the provincial economy from the purchase of goods and services during the construction, including $130 million to the regional economy.

When this act becomes law, it will set out the purpose of the ITA and confirm its role in the B.C. trades-training system, it will require the ITA to develop and implement a multi-year strategic plan to achieve priorities and targets set by government, and it will require the ITA to engage with stakeholders to provide advice and recommendations on the development and implementation of the strategic plan.

I’d be interested to know if the members opposite plan to vote against the bill. But, encouragingly, from the conversations I’ve heard in the last little while since I’ve been sitting in the chamber, I’m glad to hear that many, if not all, of the members opposite plan on supporting the legislation.

[1535]

It’s important that we not discourage young people from entering the trades and planning for a great future. I can assure you of one thing. Members on this side of the House plan on supporting this bill because it supports the young people of this province, it will help to provide a solid framework going forward, and it will help us build for the future, a bright future that holds endless opportunities.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to follow the member who has now discovered the importance of young people in education and its value to British Columbia, because, after all, this is the government that blew up the existing system we had that had worked so well for a number of years and has now come back in the form of what I will call a less than full apology for the mess that they made in the first place.

But, of course, we can never quite admit we’re fully wrong and accept all of the recommendations that Jessica McDonald made. You know, I’m very conscious of the fact…. And I mean no criticism when I say this of Jessica McDonald’s abilities, because those are well known, but she is regarded on this side of the House and by some

[ Page 11197 ]

members of the public as being a somewhat partisan figure, given her previous positions working for the Liberal government.

Notwithstanding that, she essentially recommended that organized labour should actually have a greater involvement in this whole process. Now, I know that for the government benches, the concept that legislation would actually have some, I don’t know, positive aspect to it around organized labour is almost anathema. I mean, they can’t possibly accept that.

The reality is that many years ago much of the world looked to Germany, for instance, as a sterling example of how to manage an economy. Candidly, Germany doesn’t have the natural resources of Canada, for example. It’s still got coal in the Ruhr and things like that and a great education system, but essentially the Germans figured out a long time ago that real cooperation between government and organized labour and industry was, in fact, the way to build a real economy. So this opportunity that was presented as a result of Ms. McDonald’s recommendations with her ITA review — that labour should have a greater involvement — seems to have just slipped by the government.

Now, we are all praising the value of well-trained and skilled workers in our province, and that’s very important. I say with no small amount of pride, my brother — who’s now happily retired and quite well off, brother Lanny — many years ago attended vocational school in Nanaimo, the precursor to what is now Vancouver Island University.

He took his early training and went off to apprentice as a mechanic at Bowell McLean, when Jimmy Pattison had just bought it and was establishing his wonderful reputation for being a ruthless and effective business manager by firing the lowest-selling salesman every month off the car floor. Thank God, he didn’t take that attitude towards the apprentice mechanics.

My brother, after due course in four years, obtained his journeyman status as an auto mechanic, and it served him well in an interesting and varied career. I guess what I’m trying to indicate is that if we really want to make the economy work, we have to respect the things that people do. Even the Bible says that labour is worthy of his hire. And “hire,” just for those members who don’t appreciate what I’m saying, is really talking about his wages — or her wages, because, after all, it’s International Women’s Day.

This bill that we are amending, the Industry Training Authority Act, was assented to back on May 29, 2003. It was part of that great wave of what the B.C. Liberals regarded as reform, and what many people in British Columbia — particularly in organized labour in this province and the New Democratic Party — regarded as an assault on working people and the blowing up of a system that was designed to ensure that we would not go through periods in this province where we didn’t have people with the real skills needed to work in a modern economy.

[1540]

This legislation clearly wasn’t established to build bridges with organized labour. It wasn’t established to build bridges with any community. It was established because some folks, I suspect — particularly the independent contractors of this province’s association and some of its spokespersons, who are notoriously opposed to the rights of workers to organize — wanted a system that was, I would argue, top-heavy, and they believed ideologically suited to their way of thinking and would presumably provide greater profits.

Well, what did we discover? Through the mid part of the last decade, we saw the results of the destruction of that system: people getting work for which they were not qualified, projects being erected in a slipshod fashion, problems with various major construction projects, for example. All reflective of a system that had been…. Maybe I’ll just say damaged, not entirely destroyed.

When you look at the legislation, you can see where the roots of some of this may lie. The bill, as it exists now, says in

section 3: “The minister may appoint a board of directors to consist of up to 9 directors and may appoint one of the directors as the chair.” Now, what does that tell you? That says: “Oh, we’re not going to even give a signal to anyone that we might listen to anyone other than ourselves as government. And of course, we listen to our masters.” Who are the masters? Well, they are the people who contribute to the B.C. Liberals.

We saw pretty clearly in legislation that they responded very quickly to the wishes and desires and hopes of their contributors. Of course, it’s one of the reasons we never see even a hint that they’ll consider banning corporate and union donations to political parties. But that’s a story for another day.

My point is this. The legislation doesn’t say: “The minister may appoint a board of directors and shall appoint or shall consider appointing from various sectors of the economy that may have an interest in industry training.” It doesn’t say that. Going to Bill 7, the Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, again, and I come back to my point, even Ms. McDonald — who, I emphasize, is not seen as a non-partisan appointment — recommended that labour should have greater involvement.

Where does the government think these people are going to get their training, and who’s going to be there side by side to train them? Do they think they’re going to get all of the training in a program at an institution? Does the government not understand that much of what we really learn in life is out in actual practice?

I’m sure the Minister of Advanced Education would probably remind everyone that he didn’t learn to be a fine lawyer by just going to law school. He learned by actually getting out there in the nitty-gritty of practice.

What do you learn in practice? First, you learn to sink or swim, as in any position or job or occupation or calling. But you also learn from those experienced persons around you. That grey-haired person, male or female, be-

[ Page 11198 ]

side you, who may have some experience, who may have faced this problem before, actually can provide a benefit. In a formalized system, we call those people teachers. In civilized societies and progressive societies — even pretty much in every society, uncivilized as well — you respect teachers.

Here was this wonderful opportunity for the government to recognize the value of organized worksites, recognize that a jobsite that requires a certain number of apprentices is a better jobsite than one that doesn’t. Firstly, they’ll learn the real basics of any worksite, which is around safety. Safety is important.

You could have shown the respect for organized labour in this bill by simply saying, “The minister shall appoint two members” — oh heck, even one member — “from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the building trades council” — any member of any major union that represents people who are on the worksite a great deal, who are actually out there building British Columbia. The government could have done that. Instead, it chose not to.

[1545]

Now, I can hear the minister. She’ll get a chance to respond to my remarks. I’m sure that something hopeful and positive will come of that, and she’ll say that she’s committed to a policy of appointing a third of the membership of the nine possible directors from organized labour. Maybe she’ll say that.

I’m not convinced. When I look through the bill, the amendments are fairly basic. Now, it does say that the purposes of the authority are now the following, and it’s added a further section. It adds that

section because, right now,

section 2 simply says: “The Industry Training Authority is established as a corporation consisting of a board of directors appointed under

section 3.”

The B.C. Liberals like that. Appoint it as a corporation, and then you pretend it’s this innocent waif out there, much like B.C. Ferries, over which the government has no control or no interest or relationship.

Sub (2): “The authority has the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity”, which for those who are interested in the law, basically means that, like any corporate body, you have all the power and capacity of an individual. And sub (3): “The authority is an agent of the government.” Ah, a bit of an admission there. An agent of the government.

Now, what are the purposes of the authority? They’re now, under the legislation:

“(

a) to manage and support an industry training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia” — well, thank goodness we finally recognized that; “(

b) to ensure that the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (

a) meets the Province’s need for skilled workers” — that horse is well out of the barn; “(

c) to work with the government to achieve the government’s objectives respecting the industry training and apprenticeship system referred to in paragraph (a); (

d) to promote industry training programs, including by encouraging employers and individuals to participate in those programs; (

e) other purposes the minister may prescribe.”

Now, the proposed

section 2.1(

d) could have said: “to promote industry training programs, including by encouraging employers” — comma — “organizations representing workers, trade unions, skilled trades organizations.”

It could have said a multitude of things, instead of just saying “employers and individuals” to participate in those programs. That’s because, I suspect, we’re really not interested in doing that. This is a government, one of whose members some time ago, who is no longer a member of this Legislative Assembly, said, when this government tore up the contract for the Hospital Employees Union workers — what was the phrase? — “They were nothing but a bunch of toilet cleaners.”

I think that was the phrase. I’m sure some of the members might remember that phrase. “They were nothing but a bunch of toilet cleaners.”

Now, hon. Speaker, I’ve got to tell you. As someone who cleans the toilets to our house, I say, with no small amount of pride, that’s respectable work. You know, it’s kind of important work. But to suggest for a moment that that’s all that the members of the Hospital Employees Union did for their occupation day in, day out, ensuring cleanliness and all the other things that go with good health care in a hospital setting?

To suggest that that was pretty much it speaks volumes as to why we’re not making the progress in British Columbia that we could if this government was actually committed to working in partnership and in concert with the very organizations that, historically, ensured that workers got training, ensured that there could be generations of people who were qualified carpenters, electricians, labourers, mechanics and ensured that there were people available so that, in fairness, worksites would be safer, productivity would be higher and the results for whoever was paying the bill at the end of the day — whether it be a business or a government; provincial, federal or municipal — was in fact getting good value for their dollar and projects finished and worked.

[1550]

You know, I know the members opposite love to pretend that nothing happened in the 1990s.

But as someone who saw the commencement, construction and completion of the inland Island highway on time, under budget, with a significant program that involved bringing into the workforce for the first time indigenous peoples and women in record numbers and saw many of those people go on to long and successful careers in the construction industry, I must say there’s a really good example of what you can do when you use the power of government in an intelligent way and in a way that is designed to support workers, to support — to use the favourite phrase of the government benches — taxpayers, who will then be in position to pay revenue to government, to make a better British Columbia for all of us.

That’s what you can actually do when you show respect for workers.

[ Page 11199 ]

When we look at this bill and I consider how other countries around the world, particularly European democracies with some history, whose time goes back and includes the history of the guilds…. You see what can be achieved.

I suppose my regret today is that as much as the opposition will support this bill — that’s pretty obvious — it just could have been better, and it could have done a better job. Yet somehow the government can’t bring itself, even in the three short pages of this bill — in three short pages — to admit that it made a mistake, to acknowledge that mistake, to move forward by bringing labour into the tent instead of constantly excluding them, instead of disrespecting them.

If there was a massive press announcement, as I said earlier, that it was the minister’s intention to involve organized labour in a direct way, I would have been so excited. Or if we had seen the Premier’s guarantee of jobs, the building of Site C, if we saw some real evidence that there was a sincere desire to ensure that people who get decent wages and decent benefits would actually be involved in the spending of what is often their own money, the money they’ve paid by way of taxes or their families have paid by way of taxes, if we saw some sincere desire or indication that that was a wish of government, we’d all be so much more excited.

Now we settle for this. Yes, it’s a step forward. I’m not going to deny that. It requires the ITA to engage with stakeholders, provide advice and recommendations around a strategic plan. It requires them to develop a multi-year strategic plan. I love strategic plans. They are all the vogue now, you know.

I mean, for a long time there, we never wanted to talk about plans, because everybody was thinking Joe Stalin. But now we’re all in favour of strategic plans. And planning is good. Successful businesses can only move forward if they have real strategic plans.

One would hope successful governments…. Unfortunately, governments’ plans usually revolve around a four-year electoral cycle, which is pretty grim. In the United States, it’s even worse, with the two-year congressional electoral cycle. But that’s a story for another day as well.

As we move forward ever so very slowly with trying to recognize that we’re all in this together, that trade unions are not going to disappear in a democratic society; as we move forward and try and hopefully live in a world that recognizes that a high-wage economy is better than a low-wage economy, where work is respected and tradespeople who have skills are respected, where a notary in Germany gets no more respect in the community than the machinist — as we try and strive for that kind of equality and recognition of the value and importance of labour and people with skills, that should be the objective of government.

I just don’t see it here today. I just don’t see it. If I did, I’d be quite thrilled.

If cabinet ministers are happy to go around and be seen — and Premiers, for that matter…. I think the Premier likes a good photo op once in a while. If cabinet ministers and Premiers are happy to go around the province being seen photographed in front of technical schools or at BCIT or a construction site or the opening of a public facility with all the happy construction crew around them….

[1555]

If Premiers and cabinet ministers so enjoy this work and love having that happen, then why is it so difficult for them to recognize and value the skills and training that enabled those workers to complete these projects; or enables a worker to ensure that the car you drive gets you here safely; or to ensure, in terms of training, that the person who’s operating the MRI machine at the hospital actually knows what they’re doing? Why is it so difficult, arguably, for government to recognize this and just say thank you?

I mean, we all acknowledge…. I say this with great respect to all my many friends who have one and all those young people pursuing it: it’s wonderful to have a political science degree. I believe in the value of education at any level and for any purpose, if for nothing else than just improving your mind and your outlook. But we have to recognize that a good portion of our society is not going to be working as assistants to politicians or moving into government.

They’re actually going to be out there working and building things and making things work. Generating computer systems that might actually be functional so that government won’t waste hundreds of millions of dollars on programs that don’t work, so that social workers won’t be tearing their hair out or going off on stress leave because they can’t get the computer system to work. We need people with real skills.

When you respect people with real skills and you fund the institutions that provide the training for that and you recognize that there are aspects of our society where there are unions in place and training programs and you value those, you will ultimately get a better society, a safer society, a wealthier society, a healthier society.

What I just don’t understand about all of this is why the government…. After you’ve been 15 years in power, you think you’d have the confidence to be able to reach across to the hand of the people you see as your political enemies and shake it and recognize that maybe now you should be satisfied about yourself.

[ Page 11200 ]

I can’t see why, if I were a B.C. Liberal, but I’m sure they must be self-satisfied, because that’s pretty much the substance of all the speeches I ever hear from the other side. They’re very self-satisfied. My goodness, they’ve taken what they’ve portrayed as a complete train wreck and turned it into some kind of thing that would make Japan look happy to speed between, you know, Kyoto and Tokyo.

If it’s so difficult for them to do that, so hard, do they really expect that things are going to improve? When you almost, it appears, purposely exclude from the table one of the most important components of any worksite, the people who actually do it….

I know we’re management crazy in the 21st century. There are so many organizations that are top-heavy with either upper management or middle management. But somebody who actually wields the hammer or clicks the mouse or grabs the wrench or whatever — those people actually still have value. I know that as we move into an age of robotics, that’s important. But you know what? Somebody has to build the robots too. Somebody has to actually be able to assemble things from time to time. It can’t be all done by robotics.

Let me just say that as much