1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 17,

Part 2

[ Page 1703 ]

The House resumed at 7:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the House, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $403,000 (continued).

The Chair: Shall vote 42 pass? I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: A little later this evening, yes, hon. Chair, but not at the moment.

For the information of the minister and his staff, I have a series of questions which I want to ask on labour relations and labour programs, which are the essence, but not the complete essence, of his ministry. These will be questions on accountability -- i.e., where the money is being directed. As the minister might expect, there will probably be some questions on policy issues such as the fair-wage policy, too.

First, I take note of the labour relations division profile. I believe I gave them credit yesterday, but I want to do so again. I thank the ministerial staff for their briefing and some of the overview notes that we received, which were helpful. But naturally, there are some questions that come out of the overview, and we just want some clarification on some of them.

With regard to the labour relations division profile, which has a budget of $226,600 for this current estimates year, I note, under the major responsibilities of this division, that it's listed that there's an ongoing liaison with the Labour Relations Board. That's a fairly brief statement. Can the minister amplify on what the ongoing liaison with the LRB would be in this regard?

Hon. M. Sihota: What that means in simple terms is that Mr. Cott is responsible for the linkage between the Labour Relations Board, the ministry and myself. So he has staff and responsibilities to make sure that there are channels of communication, that the Labour Relations Board, for example, stays within its budget, behaves itself from a fiscal point of view, carries out its administrative functions and follows through on the directives that I may, from time to time, issue.

J. Dalton: That's, as I probably would have anticipated, a fairly general response. Does that mean, for example, that the minister will be advised through his assistant deputy minister, who, of course, is the overseer of this particular division, that any specific issues that have been brought to the attention of the Labour Relations Board will, in turn, be forwarded to the minister for his attention, if need be? Does this division perform that kind of responsibility?

Hon. M. Sihota: Because the Labour Relations Board is independent of government, and because there is a need to maintain some communications with that agency from time to time.... Let me give you an example. Fees -- charging fees, filing fees -- with the Labour Relations Board are an administrative and fiscal issue. It may be that the Minister of Finance says to me, "Look, we need to raise more revenue. Can you do something out of Labour?" and I say: "Well, we'll look at this issue of fees." I may ask Mr. Cott to go and talk to them, seek their advice and see what they think.

Anytime I do that, the answer from the Labour Relations Board will be: "No, you shouldn't do anything along those lines."

That's the kind of thing that would come up. From time to time I'm made aware of issues that are before the board, where once a decision is released -- you know, when a decision is out -- you may want to be aware of it. It just arrived today, and it lays out the parameters upon which education may be considered an essential service.

J. Dalton: That probably leads into the very next point that I want to seek the advice of the minister on. Another major responsibility as listed for the labour relations division is "any bargaining issues involving high-profile public interest labour relations disputes." That's a rather lengthy phrase, but that's a direct quote from the overview as provided.

The minister has cited the example of the essential service designation, and we discussed earlier in this committee the Vancouver school district application to the LRB about essential service, which, as we agreed, was only an academic exercise because of the intervention of the government through a special session. Would that be an appropriate example, when the public interest is brought to the attention of this division and then, of course, directed to the minister for his overview?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are other examples. You know, I have to approve the commencement of the process for designations for essential services. So the assistant deputy will come to me, and I may take the view that it's too early to start that, even though the board may think they want to get on with it. There are times when I think I want to get on with it, even though the board thinks it might be a bit premature. Sometimes there will be discussion; occasionally there will be a discussion about.... I don't think I've ever directed who should be involved in a dispute, but sometimes I'll be advised as to who's involved in a dispute.

Sometimes there are broad disputes like AirCare. Again I'll be frank with you; I'll give you another example. I came out of the Environment portfolio and was well aware of the impact on AirCare. So I let it be known to staff that I want an update on what's happening in that dispute. Normally, I wouldn't pick up the phone to the mediation division and ask them. I'd just ask Mr. Cott, and he'd get me the information. I may want to say: "Look, perhaps you should know that government is considering A, B and C, and you may want to convey that to the parties." So sometimes that kind of signalling will occur.

J. Dalton: It is interesting that the minister cited the very example that we had considered earlier today of the essential service designation, whereby, of course, he does have the final say as to whether such an application would proceed. Now, I don't want to revisit old territory, but given his dual capacity as both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour -- we're now debating the Labour estimates -- it may come back one day and present a real problem, a conflict, for this

[ Page 1704 ]

minister in his dual capacity. But as I say, I just want to cite that as a potential example whereby the minister's dual portfolios could cause him some awkward times.

I don't think anyone in this House or committee would disagree that the essential service designation issue is clearly a high-profile public interest issue. Perhaps it is one we don't have to confront, given provincewide bargaining and other methods of trying to resolve education issues that are now in place -- but we'll have to see.

Major activities of this division are listed. Well, we've covered essential service designation requests. Earlier this committee touched on monitoring the impacts and effectiveness of labour relations law. I would take that to mean the invocation of

section 3 of the Labour Relations Code. The minister agreed earlier that he has in mind to implement that, and I hope fairly soon, because I think it's long overdue for a very serious, objective look at the impacts of the code, which has now been in effect for almost four years. As the minister will recall, I did suggest that he might want to invoke

section 7 of the Employment Standards Act, but he has indicated he's not prepared to do that.

I remind the committee that I reinforce the suggestion raised by my colleague for Richmond East that we consider an ongoing review of the Workers Compensation Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, those may be examples. You know, it's not out of the realm of probability that staff will come to me and say: "Look, this provision of the code isn't working, minister, and we really should make a change." It may show up as a miscellaneous statutes amendment provision. That would be another example.

Another example would be the construction industry. I may sit down and talk to staff about the challenges in the construction industry sector, just to see what our options are, and one of the options may be to appoint somebody out of the board or the mediation side of the operation to look into that issue for implementation. That's the kind of ongoing advice that I get from my staff in that division, and they get an indication of what the priorities of government would be.

J. Dalton: I have two other issues I want to canvass right now, which I'll get to in a moment. I see my two colleagues from Okanagan-Vernon and Vancouver-Quilchena are champing at the bit to get at the minister on a particular issue, so I will certainly be sure I allow them in, probably in about five minutes' time.

The next thing I do want to have a comment on is one of the statutes that is under the purview of this labour relations division, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act -- not an easy thing to say -- and the minister is certainly familiar with that act. I presume the minister has had the opportunity to read or certainly to review Allan Hope's decision in the arbitration involving the Vernon firefighters. I understand -- and perhaps the minister can confirm this -- that that decision of Mr. Hope's went to a judicial review. If so, what was the outcome -- if there has been an outcome -- rendered in that case?

[7:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter was referred back to Mr. Hope on the basis of inappropriate application of the criteria.

J. Dalton: Is it true that this inappropriate application was because he didn't apply the actual wording of the current act? Maybe he was relying on previous decisions or something that was not contained within the statute itself?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it related to local conditions and the court's view that Mr. Hope perhaps had not taken into account or applied accurately and appropriately considerations involving the local conditions in the local market.

J. Dalton: I think probably one final question. Has Mr. Hope had the opportunity to revisit this issue? The reason why I am raising this, as the minister might appreciate, is that the city of Vernon, of course, is on record as being very concerned about the implications to the taxpayer, with wage parity being the central issue to the arbitration. Has Mr. Hope had the opportunity now to sit down and, in the context of the judicial review, revisit the application itself?

Hon. M. Sihota: Not that we are aware of.

J. Dalton: So we'll all stay tuned to see what the outcome of that revisit process is.

The other thing I wanted to ask about with regard to one part of the labour programs in the estimates is the labour services branch. There is a budget in the estimates of $226,400. I can't find any information provided as to the function of the labour services branch. What is the mandate of this particular branch?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is to provide management services for the office of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, to liaise with chairs, members of the board, board reference groups and committees and with senior officials of business, labour and management; to assist boards with policy planning, research and analysis so that the goals of the ministry and the government are reflected.

Those are the types of matters, and there is a broad range of issues that are to be dealt with, including recommendations for new trades, occupations, flexible learning alternatives, compulsory training and certification, cooperative education, equity issues, access, extensions of technical training, secondary-school apprenticeships and enhancement of trade advisory committees.

The kind of boards that are involved there are, of course, boards such as the Workers Compensation Board, the Labour Force Development Board, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Education -- because we talk to each other from time to time -- and so on. So there is a whole plethora of boards and activities there.

A. Sanders: I'm here specifically to discuss an issue with respect to the Labour ministry that affects my riding of Okanagan-Vernon. This is the Venture Training program that is operating in Okanagan-Vernon. The minister will have been apprised of this, as there has been a considerable amount of documented correspondence between Nancy Pike of the Venture Training program and the minister's office. Specifically, I'm here to address the facility.

Venture Training is made up of three sheltered workshop programs which are in operation for the physically and, more importantly, the mentally handicapped. Those two groups of disabled individuals are, using the word loosely, "employed" at the Venture Training program. Venture Training will close July 31, primarily because of the Employment Standards Act. There are three aspects to the Venture Training program: Venture Training, which is a sheltered woodwork shop facility; All Occasions, which is a party decoration facility -- the individuals who are, again using the word loosely, "working"

[ Page 1705 ]

at All Occasions make decorations for weddings and birthdays, etc., for the community; and Cycle Cycle, which is a bicycle repair facility. It also finds lost bicycles and is a glass recycling enterprise.

This three-faceted sheltered workshop is run by the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped. This operation has been in existence for 40 years. There were, as of last week, individuals who had been in that program for 25 years continuously. There are 80 individuals. They are individuals who have impairments of severe magnitude, in some cases, with extremely compromised IQs -- if the minister still looks at IQ as a measurement.

From my point of view, they often will be severely handicapped individuals -- with Down's syndrome, for example -- who have concomitant physical handicaps of congenital abnormalities of the heart, blood pressure, perhaps digestive system, visual system or who are hearing impaired, etc.

These 80 people, some who have worked there for 25 years, are employed in the Venture Training program. The problem with Venture Training is the Employment Standards Act. This has been a hard pill to swallow for the individuals who run the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped, because of an NDP government -- because the NDP is supposedly the government that stands up for the small people, the minority groups, those who have impairments of some kind.

Specifically, the Employment Standards Act is cited by the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped as the reason for the facility's closure. The woodwork shop closed last week; the bicycle repair and glass recycling station will close in September.

I presented a petition on behalf of my district today, containing 2,700 names. These names are of people from the business sector, people who work in the facility and members of the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped. It also contains the full script of the mayor and council of Vernon; a letter from Joanne Kineshanko, the mayor of Lumby; the scripts of the Social Planning Council in Vernon; and the scripts of the participants and their families, many of these who have been employed there for quite some time. I do have letters from participants in the group that I am very happy to table for the minister.

But most importantly, they include 2,700 names of people in the Vernon community who -- over a very short time, specifically about a month -- have gone to the trouble of signing the petitions in various locations in Vernon, to say: "We do not want this government to stop this program. We've had it for 40 years. It's worked; it's provided a service. Our community cannot believe, especially under an NDP government, that we're going to see this service go."

So what specifically is the problem? What has happened under the Employment Standards Act is that government has said what these individuals are doing is classified as a job. If it is a job, these individuals are working. If they are working, they should be paid minimum wage. If you go to this facility, you will find that some of the people working in Venture Training are not able to speak. Those who are able to speak may not be able to read, and those who are able to read may not be able to write. We're talking about a number of individuals who are not productive enough within any society, let alone ours, to be appropriate for mainstream training.

This program in Vernon, with its three sheltered workshops, runs on a deficit. When the Employment Standards Act was first introduced, the government said to this group: "Come talk to us, and we'll see how we can work with you so you can get around the rules, and you can have your handicapped individuals be on some kind of training program." Many of the people who are on the board of this particular group are fairly ideologically driven, as is our present government.

Not only have some of them worked there a long time, they have individuals in their family who are employed in Venture Training, -- handicapped individuals who are adults living in their own homes. What they really took exception to, with the government's view that if they just came in here, they'd figure some way for them to get this under the rug, was that their programs would be exempt unless they went into the refocus program.

The refocus program under the Employment Standards Act, as I understand it, assumes that clients would one day enter the job market. We are looking at individuals who in some cases have worked in this facility for 25 years. From the director's descriptions to me, there are individuals who have spent a very considerable period of time taking a bottle from this area and putting it over in that area, or taking a piece of wood that's been cut to a certain shape and moving it over to the next station. They are completely happy and productive; they have a place to go, and they are doing good work.

But the limitations in scope of what they're doing would never be delineated into a retraining program where in three years they would move out into the workforce and obtain a job with competition within the real world.

I have very good descriptions of many of these people from a medical point of view, if the minister wishes to look at what kind of people we're talking about. To assume that some of these clients would one day enter any realistic job market is absolutely, totally, patently ridiculous.

Venture is not an achievement centre. Under the Employment Standards Act, one of the things that has been asked is what can be done to move these people out into the world so that they can achieve something -- so they can move beyond what their scope is and get into the active job market. Venture operates under a self-help skills contract that is augmented by sales and contracts with outside businesses such as B.C. Gas, B.C. Hydro and Tolko Industries, a large employer in the forest industry in the Vernon and district area.

The information that I have for the minister, along with the petition, includes supporting letters from all these industries and groups who employ the individuals who work at Venture Training.

The other part that was very difficult for this group to look at was that the government went in and did a mockup, and they said: "These people are working, and because they're working, you need to pay them minimum wage. This is work. This is not training; you don't have a program." The people at Venture said to the ministry officials who were involved in enforcement of the Employment Standards Act: "What is a training program? Show us an example."

[7:30]

Again, objective criteria are lacking. There is no objective criterion such as: "This is a training program, and this is what you have to look at and go by." There were no examples of training programs, and there was no incentive for the hiring of extra staff to somehow make a mockery of this and invent training programs for these individuals who are moving one block or one bottle from here to there. In addition, there was no funding. Everything else was the same, but no funding was provided for extra staff to come in and invent mock training programs.

The ridiculousness of thinking that in many cases these people would in three years be going into the competition for

[ Page 1706 ]

mainstream employment is beyond belief, when you look at what is happening in these sheltered workshops. So from an ideological point of view, the board of this group said: "Forget it. We are not going to play a charade and invent some stupid training program so that the ministry is happy that these people who have been here for a quarter of a century are going to be trained and out of here, competing with the real world in three years."

Now, what the people from Venture Training have told me is that the government will have a definite response to the argument. They will say that these people in Vernon are renegades. Their own associations, the B.C. Association for Community Living and the Canadian Mental Health Association, are in agreement with the Employment Standards Act. Well, I think what's important for the minister to recognize is that these organizations, the CMHA and the BCACL, are not training programs.

They are often therapeutic programs, and in the case of the CMHA, they do run therapeutic programs for psychiatrically disabled patients who often, from a medication point of view, can be remediated and sent into the workforce. They don't have a congenital or an acquired condition that keeps them in a circumstance where for life they will be the way they are.

For the staff positions, Venture Training itself is in full support of the Employment Standards Act. The people who work on the Venture Training program as coordinators or administrators are paid far beyond minimum wage, so they are well remunerated for what they do. Those individuals are quite happy with looking at the minimum wage for this particular program and saying that if you're doing work, you're paid the minimum wage.

So what do we have? Well, we have what I consider to be a big mess and something that is really a mockery of what we're trying to do. We're trying to produce a program where people are paid for doing work at a level that they can live on, and that's not even going into the arguments about whether minimum wage at $7 and increasing with yearly inflation is appropriate, because that's a whole other set of points of view and arguments. But in terms of people who are permanently handicapped and disabled, is this appropriate?

Do we now close this program that's been there for a really long time, supported by a huge part of the community and certainly by the governance part of the community, because of some stupid act the government brings in?

We now put those people on day programs or make-work kinds of projects or pretend training when, in fact, none of those things makes sense for these people. These people are doing fine, and we're closing down their place, a place they've gone for a really long time. My community is furious over this. They're not furious over the Employment Standards Act. Some may be, but it's not related to this. They're furious about the definition of work and the fact that these individuals are now going to be put in day programs, or whatever. In some cases, the money for restructuring is far in excess of what these people would get for what they're doing, and this program is folding.

My community has said: "We want the minister to be aware of this. We've sent letters. The minister is too busy to meet with us. The ministry staff is too busy to correspond with us." They want to hear from this minister in this ministry, and they have asked me to bring this issue here so that they are sure that you understand what's going on for them. If you understand and the decisions are the same, then so be it. But they need to know, in what they are doing in the community, that there is no potential for misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

Whatever the information the minister wishes to impart to me tonight, I will take back to these individuals and their families. But it's important for me to know that he understands what this is about and what the legislation has indirectly created in one community in British Columbia.

I look forward to the minister's rebuttal. I have some questions -- five questions -- and they are brief, after my monologue, but they will just impart different areas of....

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I am sure you appreciate the time limits that do exist, even in discussions at this time. If you just want to let the minister reply, then you can ask your questions.

A. Sanders: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would look forward to the minister replying.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member, I think, made one comment which I take umbrage with. She called this a stupid act. I don't think she really meant to say that; at least, I hope she didn't mean to say that. This act tried to grapple with a significant and difficult philosophical issue in society, and that issue is the degree to which we would try to apply the principles of equality to individuals suffering with disabilities.

We have an obligation as a society to try to treat people who suffer from disabilities in a respectful and dignified way. We have an obligation, and we believe in this country that one ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their disability, and that all people are to be treated equally, regardless of disabilities.

The Employment Standards Act changes that the hon. member refers to were designed to grapple with that issue which many in the past have chosen to be blind to. Now, there is an outcome in terms of the legislation, and in the application of trying to extend those principles of equality, it may well be that it isn't applied with perfection, and it may well be the system doesn't work as well as one would have hoped it would. It may well be that in trying to grapple with the issue, people overreached or underreached, as the case may be.

But quite frankly, hon. Chair, I take exception to the categorization of the effort to deal with that issue as being stupid. I come very close to getting angry when I hear that. I will just say that for the hon. member. I don't have difficulty with her standing up here and saying: "Look, you tried to deal with this problem, you came up with

an act, and I don't think it's working." I don't mind having a debate on that basis. But when one begins to sort of poke at the philosophic underpinnings of legislation, I do have difficulty.

Now, there are 22 centres of this nature in the province, and two of them -- one in Vernon and, I believe, one in Surrey -- are centres that we're having some difficulties with. My own sense of this matter is that there are some hard opinions held by both the Ministry of Social Services and the operators of this facility in Vernon. It seems to me that inasmuch as we have been able to resolve 20 of the 22 cases, there's got to be some way to respect the principle that was found in the statute and to allow for some consideration of the situation that exists in Vernon.

The hon. member is right. She knows that if it's a training program, a preparation program or a support program, as opposed to an employment program, then there are different outcomes. The act does not apply in the case of a support program or preparation program or, as the member alluded to, for three years under a training program.

[ Page 1707 ]

I will try in this House to defuse what I think could be potentially a really explosive debate by simply suggesting to the hon. member that I will have staff from my ministry, as opposed to Social Services, intervene in this matter and see if there can be a resolution to an issue that has clearly concerned both the MLA for the area and the community that she represents.

G. Wilson: I think this is a critical issue. I think that the minister will be aware that through a number of organizations -- BCACL is one -- active work is already underway with respect to the ministry and staff actions to look at the Employment Standards Act in terms of whether or not the definition of work, as it is already there, applies.

In fact, the member for Victoria-Hillside has already done a lot of work, and I know the Powell River Source Club has already actively pushed this issue forward over the last number of months to try to get that definition clarified. I would say that while I certainly concur that these are by no means stupid programs -- these are programs that are of enormous importance to these people -- the definition of work that is contained within the Employment Standards Act quite likely does not apply with respect to the number of minimum hours. That's the issue.

I think that there is a solution underway. It would be nice to hear a commitment from the minister that the definition could be clarified, and that there could be some kind of communication to those organizations to let them know that there shouldn't be a great deal of excitement around this right now, that this is an issue that is acknowledged by all parties as needing to be clarified and that, in fact, work is underway to get that clarification in place. I do know it has caused considerable trauma, perhaps unnecessarily so.

In this debate I would certainly not want to exacerbate the situation by having people who may be tuned in maybe misunderstanding what is being said here and thinking that this issue is not in fact being solved. I believe the solution is near at hand, and I know that many people in this condition and situation will often become easily traumatized by a situation that is quite unnecessary.

[7:45]

A. Sanders: In rebuttal to the minister's comments, I apologize to the minister if I have offended his ideology. There was no intent to do that. Those words were not my words. In fact, they were words of one of the individuals who had written to me, who is a member of the Venture Training program and a self-advocate in terms of how she viewed how this was affecting her life. I do not look at this program in terms of the Employment Standards Act; I am looking at it from the point of view of someone employed in this situation who is mentally and physically challenged and finds that they've been put out of work by

an act that's supposed to be good for them.

Now, if you have a situation where you invoke a treatment on a patient and the patient dies, then that is not a good treatment. In fact, it may be a stupid treatment. You look at it again and ask: what kind of changes could we make to curtail, dovetail, fit that treatment to that patient profile? These are the things I understand. I'm not a labour lawyer. I am not physically or mentally challenged, as far as I know.

But I do appreciate from talking to these people and from talking to their advocates what it feels like for them to have just closed down their program and what it feels like for them to have tried to get an audience with this minister and this ministry. They have been told that there was no time, that the session was in, that we were too busy.

I don't want to get into an ideological argument here. We are on opposite sides of the House for a very good reason, and that is because our ideology is not the same. I'm talking about how we can work together in a win-win situation so that the government in power, who wish to have an Employment Standards Act which will work for a large majority of individuals, can also provide for people who are physically and mentally handicapped, without saying: "Let's sweep them under the carpet because they don't quite fit the rules." What can we do together that will offer them the opportunity to keep working?

As the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has said, this has to do with the definition of work. It doesn't have to do with the act per se; it doesn't have to do with minimum wage. It has to do with how you define work. The employment standards branch of this government has come into this facility and said: "These people are working, and therefore they are paid minimum wage. They're not being trained, because we know that in three years they're not going anywhere."

We need to have something here to accommodate people like this. If we don't do this, this government, with its mandate to protect the little people, has totally missed the base. I am willing to work with this minister in any way, shape or form to get around or to make this situation one where these people can be profitably employed in something that has worked for a really long time, without putting them in the situation where we have to pretend that they're working or pretend that they're training.

They are writing their own letters to this minister, saying:

"You've got a lot to learn about what it is like to be a physically and mentally challenged individual. I know. I've worked at Venture Training and other workplaces. So please don't close down Venture Training and other workshops and workplaces that people like me need to have to be useful and happy citizens.

"Signed,

Amanda Lennard"

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's just step aside from this situation where people are suffering from disabilities. There are times in this province when people find themselves unemployed, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because of a decision of government, because of a policy change in government; sometimes it's because of a decision of an employer. Those are always emotional times for the community and for the people that are directly impacted. Just as in this case, these are emotional times for the people that are impacted and, obviously, for the community, given the reaction that the hon. member refers to.

It is very easy, in the world that we live in, to play upon those emotions. Different agendas sometimes get driven by doing that. I'm not accusing the hon. member of operating on an ideological agenda. Maybe she is; maybe she isn't. But I'm assuming that she's not. There may be others who are. Whatever the case may be, my approach in these kinds of cases has been to try to dampen these emotions and to take a cold, hard look at the matter to see if there's anything we can do to try to salvage the "employment" situation people find themselves in.

This government has indicated over the last ten days that we were prepared to meet with people to discuss this issue -- not myself and not the Premier, but that at the political level, we would designate someone to have a meeting; at the highest-officials level, we would designate somebody, because it would really be at that level that this issue should be resolved. That offer was not acceptable, but I want the hon. member to know that that offer and option is still open. I'm

[ Page 1708 ]

prepared to have the member for Victoria-Hillside -- who has considerable experience in these matters -- meet my assistant deputy minister, who also has experience in these matters, to try to find a resolution. If a resolution has been found in 20 of 22 cases, I have no doubt that, if emotions are kept controlled, we can find a resolution to this issue. I would hope so. Whether people are mentally or physically challenged or not, it's a tragedy all around if they find themselves out of work. So I will deal with this issue in that fashion and, for the time being, in that fashion only. We'll try to get it resolved on that basis.

I don't think I have much more to say about this matter. I guess we can always get into a political fight about it, but that's what we're prepared to do. We will do that, and you have my commitment that that will happen.

A. Sanders: I wish at this time to thank the minister. This minister and myself will be working together in many areas, and I think this is a good building block for how we will work together. There are discrepancies in ideology, but I do believe that this is a reasonable individual, and I do believe that he will look at this circumstance, now that he's been apprised of it, and come up with whatever the right decision is. My responsibility has been to bring this issue to this House. I have done that, and I look forward to hearing the minister's comments when he reviews the situation.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want, with the indulgence of the Chair, to put something on the record -- and because the hon. member is here, to give her the opportunity to respond, should she wish. That is as follows: yesterday, during the course of discussion on estimates as they relate to Education, we were involved in a passing debate about deficits in other school districts. During the course of that debate, I was advised by staff that letters had not gone out to a number of school districts who had made an application to have their deficits approved.

Today, at 6:30, I was advised by my staff that indeed those letters had gone out. Inadvertently, on the record, I had given the hon. member the wrong impression. So, just to correct the record, I want to make sure that the hon. member is made aware of that. If she wishes to canvass that issue, I'm quite prepared -- I'm sure with the liberty of the Chair -- to canvass it further.

A. Sanders: I appreciate that from the hon. minister. I do not wish to canvass it, and I appreciate his honesty.

C. Hansen: The Employment Standards Act is a subject that is of considerable interest to me. I must say that I've seen it from an employer's side, and certainly I know the sentiments of individuals who are owners of small businesses. I'm trying to get a better understanding of it from a public policy point of view. In that vein tonight, I have a couple of questions to get a better understanding as to where the minister was coming from with the Employment Standards Act.

He had indicated earlier this afternoon that while he wasn't prepared to undertake a review of the whole act, he was planning to be meeting with sectoral groups over the months to come. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us of what sectoral groups he plans to be meeting with.

Hon. M. Sihota: I intend to meet with the particular sectoral groups in the agricultural industry, because I think there are some challenges there. It is impossible for me to make my way through Victoria and not run into Don Monsour, so I might as well meet with the hospitality and restaurant industries, as well. Those are the two I had in mind.

C. Hansen: One of the sectoral groups that feels they were left out of the consultation process before the act was written is the small business community. As the minister may know, small business in British Columbia accounts for 70 percent of job creation, and it's certainly a very important and vital sector. They have some very serious concerns about the way the Employment Standards Act is being administered, as opposed to the act itself. I wonder if the minister would consider meeting with the small business sector, specifically with regard to their concerns on employment standards.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm surprised that the hon. member would have to raise that on the floor of the House. I assume he's speaking of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. Am I correct in that assumption? The member can just nod. Well, they met most recently with my deputy and my assistant deputy minister. At that point I didn't see the need for us to meet. I had a brief discussion with the president of that organization concerning a WCB matter. My recollection of that meeting is that she didn't ask for a formal meeting, but over the ordinary course of events those meetings will happen in any event.

Largely because of the fact that the House has been sitting over the summer, and then after this, there will be a break, I'm sure, for everybody, I'll only start getting into my regular roster of meetings in the fall. I think it's inevitable that I'll meet with this group sometime over the next four to six months. These things happen, but I don't see anything pressing at this point that would warrant an immediate meeting.

C. Hansen: What I've found in the discussions I've had with owners of small business is that there's a lack of knowledge and understanding of the implications of the Employment Standards Act. It goes back not to just the changes that were made in the last parliament but to the Employment Standards Act as it's existed for years. Your staff at the ministry kindly sent me some information on the number of individuals who have gone through orientation programs with regard to the changes to the act. While it may seem like a significant number, it's really a very small number when you consider the number of small businesses in the province.

[8:00]

My concern is that the act serves not so much as the rules by which people administer their workplace, but rather that it becomes something that is basically there to punish a business owner after the fact when they inadvertently develop a procedure which was not consistent with the act.

It's an area I have some real concern with, because I've raised some specific examples both from the previous act and from the changes for businesses, and people say: "Well, no, it can't be that, because that's not logical; it's not common sense." I think legislation is most effective when it is seen to be following common sense, so that it leads somebody who administers the workplace in a way that is in keeping with what would be defined as being a good employer -- in the direction of fulfilling the obligations of the act.

There are a lot of areas I want to explore more in the months to come, and perhaps next spring we can have a more substantive discussion on this. As I say, I'm still very much in the learning curve of the implications of public policy. I know that there is a provision in the act that allows for variances. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us of the numbers of applications that have come forward with regard to variances -- not the exact numbers, if he doesn't have them, but a rough estimate of what we're looking at in terms of a request for variances.

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get you that information; we don't have it here. But let me say this to the hon. member. If he has

[ Page 1709 ]

views as to what should be changed under the Employment Standards Act, he should send them to me. As I was saying earlier today, there's a benefit to being in a portfolio for the second time, because you sometimes see and hear a lot of things. The sky was supposed to fall in, you know, when we brought forward this legislation, but we have the best economy in Canada. Small businesses are doing reasonably well; in comparison to other provinces, they're doing very well. We have the best economy and the best job creation record in Canada. We have the best credit rating.

Moody's rating came out today, and it reinforced the rating of the Dominion Bond Rating Service. That happened despite all the concern we heard about some forecast, so we're doing pretty good here in British Columbia. We have very good employment standards legislation. Now, it's true that sometimes people aren't fully informed of the legislation. Sometimes they only find out that they were supposed to do something after the fact. Most employers don't purposely violate provisions of the legislation. When they find out, subsequently, that they did something wrong, then they correct it.

We get the odd occasion when we have to do some enforcement.

While you were talking, hon. member, it occurred to me that it might be a worthwhile idea to have more education right in our school system -- that's the benefit of having both hats on -- so we can teach young people a little bit more about their rights as employees and potential employers. I'd be interested to know whether the opposition would see value in that, because that might be a welcome curriculum change.

C. Hansen: The minister touched on another pet topic and project of mine: those aspects of the curriculum which affect the labour force. I know that the career and personal planning program is something that has been relatively successful, though not without glitches. That program is very good at orienting students toward finding employment, but my concern is that we have another program, too. We don't have programs in our schools that orient students in our school system toward the creation of jobs and employment. That is certainly something that is very much of interest.

I would like to come back to the minister's offer of information on applications for variances. That's something I would very much appreciate. Specifically, I know that in the act there are certain categories for which variances can be issued. If I could get information broken down by those different provisions of the act -- and by industry sector, if possible -- it would be most helpful. I also understand that there is a provision in the act for exemptions that can be granted under the act, and I know of at least one which has been well publicized: the taxi industry. I'm wondering if any other exemptions have been granted or are being contemplated at this time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be quite happy to get that information for the hon. member, but I want to make sure that he understands that I run a very tight ministry with limited resources and high expectations. Sometimes they have to work long hours, and it's going to take some time to get this information put together. I don't think that it's collected in a way that fits with what the member has asked for. We'll get it done; I just don't want you to have an expectation that you're going to see it on your desk within 48 or 96 hours, as I often try to do with questions that are asked. It may take a while for us to get that information.

There have been some exemptions under the legislation; taxis are one. There are a number of applications for temporary exemptions now. That includes the truck loggers, truckers, regulations concerning the mentally challenged, and GAIN recipients, to name a few. I should also say that I believe in the agricultural field we've given at least some consideration to exemptions.

C. Hansen: The information is certainly not something that I would want somebody to spend a lot of time on, because I appreciate that staff time is valuable. But even just information in a general sense, if somebody can give me some round numbers, or even a telephone call from somebody who can give me a feel for the kinds of requests that are coming in, would be most appreciated.

There was a comment that the minister made earlier, I think, regarding.... I forget what prompted this thought to go through my head. But I did want to comment that in this chamber there are 75 of us who all come from different backgrounds and experiences. Ten years ago I did not have any experience as the owner of a small business, and in the last ten years I've had that experience. All of us collectively bring experiences to this chamber that we can benefit from when we're evaluating the effects of legislation.

Certainly I would have looked at something like an Employment Standards Act quite differently ten years ago than I do now, knowing the realities and day-to-day life of individuals who are trying to run small businesses, keep themselves afloat and keep all the balls juggling in the air at one time when you don't have a large staff. Basically, you have a very small staff to deal with such a broad range of responsibilities, whether they're legislated responsibilities such as the Employment Standards Act or just the day-to-day crises that will happen in a small business. It's an enormous challenge, and I think anybody who has not been through that probably doesn't appreciate that challenge.

Then when you get an added paper burden and regulation put on top of that, it may seem like a small thing, but in fact it's really quite dramatic for a lot of small businesses. It's the kind of thing that often discourages people from continuing in business or from going into business in the first place. That's where I'm coming from on this. Certainly I hope the work that I hope to do on this over the months to come will be constructive. I will definitely be making what I hope will be constructive suggestions to the minister.

Going back to the minister's previous responsibility as Minister of Environment, there are those that in the interest of promoting better air quality.... I know that the work the minister has done in the past has been celebrated and applauded. But the whole area of the compressed workweek is something that has been encouraged as one way of dealing with air quality and emission controls. I wonder if the minister sees that as running contrary to some of the lack of flexibility in the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Under the legislation, opportunities to ask for variances that are tailor-made or off the rack, so to speak, are available for individuals or companies that may want to look at a compressed workweek for environmental and other reasons. There are good economic reasons to have those compressed workweeks -- maybe a lot of good reasons for us to reduce the amount of weeks one has to work and to have a shorter workweek, so as to deal with other challenges that society has, as well. There are provisions in the statutes that do allow for that.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

In terms of your ten years of experience and your experience before those ten years, I should say this is why, when we

[ Page 1710 ]

made changes to the Employment Standards Act, I reached into the faculty of commerce at the University of British Columbia. I had Prof. Mark Thompson chair the employment standards review and have a wide dialogue with small and medium-sized businesses, workers, all numbers of people in society, before we brought forward the changes that we have placed in the Employment Standards Act, and which have contributed in some ways to the fact that we have the most buoyant economy in Canada, with the best credit rating in the country.

C. Hansen: I'm sure we don't want to get into a long discussion tonight about Mark Thompson's report or the ideological bent that may have driven some of that stuff. That's another discussion, but not for this hour of the day.

There is actually a very good publication that has the minister's picture in it. It says: "B.C. Leads Nation in Clean Air Action." It's got a very nice picture of the minister standing beside a bus on the Second Narrows Bridge. There are ten ways to breathe easier, and item No. 9 of the ten ways is to consider an alternative work schedule, compressed workweeks, flextime, telecommuting, etc.

I'm certainly aware of the provisions in the Employment Standards Act to allow for a compressed workweek. Quite frankly, it's not going to happen, because if you start putting a business owner, who already has enough things on their plate to deal with, through the procedure that is necessary, the paperwork that is necessary, to implement a flexible work schedule....

For all of the honourable objectives of a compressed workweek, whether it's to the advantage of the employee's quality of life, whether it's to the advantage of the employees when it comes to child care requirements, or whether it's to the advantage of the environment when it comes to reducing the amount of pollution in our air, I think the Employment Standards Act just results in so much additional paperwork and paper burden to a small business that it's just not going to happen.

When it does come time to review the Employment Standards Act, it's an area that I hope the minister looks at seriously. I hope that the minister, to the extent that he has flexibility and the ability to look at variance in the act in the short term, will take advantage of that flexibility and the ability for variance, to make the act easier to deal with, so that it's in the interests of both employees and employers.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to know that it takes less time to process that application for a variance than it does to read the entirety of that pamphlet.

C. Hansen: I had just said to my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano that I was finished, but I really do have to respond to that. When we get into the Guide to the Employment Standards Act , which is a handy little

summary, for which I certainly compliment those who drafted it, it's not so much the time it takes to process it. It's the time that it takes the owner of the company to go through the hoops with their staff, the posting, the filing of notices. It's that added paper burden that I know lawyers love. But from the point of view of a small business owner, it's the kind of thing that really stifles small business, stifles job creation and, I think, just makes it far more difficult for that small business sector to really thrive in our society. On that note, I will turn it over to my colleague.

[8:15]

J. Dalton: Funnily enough, I've got the very same document in my hand. I wasn't particularly intending to draw to the attention of the minister the content of it, because he is well aware of its content. But I think the previous two members who addressed particular issues in the Employment Standards Act reiterated and reinforced what I suggested to the minister earlier. I think a re-examination and evaluation is definitely needed very soon -- not just of the sectoral stuff that he is talking about, but a true, objective evaluation of the impact of this act.

I might, for example, draw the minister's attention -- my colleague from Quilchena just referred to it -- to

chapter 8. Under the flexible work schedules, an employer has to jump through many hoops to get a flexible work

schedule put together, all of which conditions are to be met -- all of them, not just one or two. You can't mix or match, or pick and choose. There are four listed; I'm not going to go through this, because this is all known to the minister and his officials. Let's not kid ourselves. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena is quite right about the paperwork, the regulations and the hoops that have to be jumped through. Small business people don't have the time, let alone the inclination, to go through that. It's a costly and very counterproductive venture. That's all I want to add to that subject.

I would like to move into another topic that no doubt will be a favourite of the minister's, and that's the fair wage. Of course, this House debated the fair-wage policy at length in the last parliament, leading up to the implementation of the act that we are all having to live with. I am sure the minister will be familiar with an interesting study -- and hopefully he's had a chance to read it -- that came out on July 9 of this year from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, dealing with this province's fair wage.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Isn't it a surprise that the minister, in his own way, is suggesting that this thing has indicated that the province is doing a good job? I think we have to consider the authorship of this document. This document -- and I'll get to the authorship of it in a moment -- makes several recommendations, so perhaps we can just run through them quickly and see whether the minister has bought into this stuff. Or maybe he authored it; I don't know. However, maybe we'll discover that.

There is a recommendation that the dollar threshold be decreased from the current $250,000 to $50,000. Is that being contemplated by the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, now that you ask.... I don't think so.

J. Dalton: Did I hear a negative on that?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Okay, fine.

Secondly, as to whether the level set for mandatory tendering -- well, that's the first.... "And the legislation be extended to cover all public works, including social housing and highways" -- is that being contemplated by the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that highways are already covered under the fair-wage act.

J. Dalton: Certainly the Island Highway is, that's true. I'm just referring to this release that came out.

[ Page 1711 ]

Putting aside whether the ministry has bought into this stuff or not, I think it's of interest when you see the two people whose names appear in this document. One is Duncan Cameron, who is the president of this outfit. He's headquartered in Ottawa. I don't know what somebody from Ottawa has to do with a B.C. fair-wage policy. The other person is a Simon Fraser, I presume.... In fact, I did have occasion to look through the Simon Fraser directory, and I did find her name: Marjorie Cohen. Is she not on the Hydro board?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Well, there you go. But we don't want to get into the Hydro stuff now, no. If we go down the hall, we can talk Hydro.

So we discover not only that Ms. Cohen is a director of Hydro, but also that the address provided in this release is her private address -- nothing to do with Simon Fraser. Putting aside the content of this document, I certainly would question the authorship or the pedigree behind it. I am hoping that we are not going to be stampeded into some of these policy statements that come either from afar or from somebody's private address in Kitsilano -- which is not going to motivate this government, I trust, into a change of policy.

However, let me be more specific about the Fair Wage Act. As the minister knows, there are three essential or stated purposes in the act, and I'm wondering whether the ministry has the capability of measuring whether in fact these objectives are being met. He's referred to these in questions put to him in the Education estimates, so this is not, of course, new stuff. We're just revisiting this issue in the context of the Labour estimate.

First, one of the purposes is "to ensure skill development training in the construction industry." Does the ministry have any capability to measure whether, in fact, skill development training is being met as a stated purpose of the act?

The Chair: I'll just remind the member to speak through the Chair, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: The other day I was reading something from the Fraser Institute, when I realized that it was written by Owen Lippert. It occurred to me that he was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Of course, I'm sure that the opposition isn't being stampeded by the ideology of right-wingers like Mr. Lippert, who ran in Esquimalt as a Conservative candidate and who got badly beaten, by the way, if memory serves me right.

The answer to your question is yes; we do monitoring. There has been a beneficial effect to the province of British Columbia on skills development, because of the apprenticeship provisions under the Fair Wage Act. I would like to think that inasmuch as all of us in this room can have a healthy debate about the Fair Wage Act, I would hope that nobody would take any issue with the increase in apprenticeships in the construction trades. There's been a 15 percent increase, and because of it, we're better off as a society. We've got people out there who are trained, and it makes those people far more employable. That is a valid and appropriate objective of the fair-wage policy, and it's working.

J. Dalton: I certainly do agree with the minister's comment about apprenticeships. In fact, it's another item I want to come to, after we've gone through some other aspects of this. As an aside, I have read both Marjorie Cohen's column published in the Vancouver Sun of July 16 on this topic and, of course, Mr. Lippert's column which followed on July 25. So we've all got this stuff. I'll put it in my drawer, and we'll worry about that later. They're interesting philosophical approaches, of course, to what is very clearly a philosophically driven issue. No surprise there.

Another very important objective.... I want to just first put on record what it is and then come back to some comments the minister made two days ago in his Education estimates. The objective is to ensure high-quality work standards in publicly funded construction projects. Two days ago, on August 6, the minister was asked about fair-wage policy in connection with the cost of school construction. There are studies out there which examined whether the fair-wage policy has added to the cost of construction.

Two days ago, the minister told the committee in his estimates on Education that maintenance costs would be reduced by the fair-wage policy. Does the Minister of Labour have any evidence to suggest -- to go on the record -- that in fact maintenance costs have been reduced by the fair wage?

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course, we haven't done any studies in British Columbia, because the policy's just come in. But there have been studies done in other jurisdictions. A number of American studies have pointed that out as a fact. They've gone out and quantified it, and they've come to that conclusion. I think I cited those studies in this House in 1992 or 1993.

J. Dalton: I would like another response on the same issue that the minister talked about two days ago, dealing with higher quality. I'm wondering if the ministry has a measuring stick to determine whether in fact we are receiving higher quality in public projects that are subject to fair-wage policy.

Hon. M. Sihota: The mere fact that now we have the trade-qualification provisions in there as a screen helps. Although we haven't monitored beyond that, I know the trade qualification process.... The member makes a good point. Perhaps to be better able to ensure that that happens, we should go to some prequalifying system where companies can prequalify based on the skills of their employees. That might give us even greater assurance that those criteria are being met.

J. Dalton: The other objective which I indicated I want to come to later is the apprenticeship opportunity. Certainly that is one that we on this side would applaud, as long as it's properly coordinated between the two ministries. I think there's another issue that, again, I want to come to a little later, dealing with the Labour Force Development Board, because it's very important. At least we do have the one advantage -- and I hope it is an advantage, as I've indicated earlier. Given that we have one minister, or one person wearing two ministerial hats, he'll be able to bring these opportunities together in a coordinated fashion and not sort of piecemeal.

I just have one other particular question, or maybe two questions, to ask about the fair-wage issue, and it involves the role of one of the ministerial staff, Mark Tatchell, who is described as the liaison on the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. Can the minister advise us as to what Mr. Tatchell's function is as a liaison? What responsibilities does he have?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe it's policy

interpretation. I don't know the gentleman, but I'm advised it's policy

interpretation, application of the act.

[ Page 1712 ]

J. Dalton: The other thing in regard to Mr. Tatchell.... Apparently he sent out an introductory letter to a number of parties who are affected by the fair wage, expressing concerns about the construction panel's interim report as to whether compliance with fair wage is being circumvented. Is there any follow-up report to that? Is there any specific evidence of circumvention, and will there be any public consultation on this issue?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm advised that the interim report said that fair-wage provisions were being flagrantly ignored.

J. Dalton: If that is the case, what is the ministry doing about these flagrant challenges to the act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Enforcement. But the more I thought about what I said earlier on about prequalification, that may be a solution as well.

J. Dalton: The next item I want to ask two or three questions on is the labour policy and program development branch. This is described, among other things, as a research component of the ministry, to provide labour-related information, research and analysis to the minister. Now, we know that the minister is receiving analysis and research from other sources within the ministry. I'm wondering whether there's not some duplication that this branch is performing. Or is it being coordinated with the other branches and divisions of his ministry? Are there research components in other branches that are duplicating this, or are they complementary to each other?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is no duplication; they are complementary. It is the central research branch. There are 11 FTEs, down from 12 last year.

I should also point out that there is another measurement on the fair wages as to how the system is working. We've had 5,000 challenges per year of the trade qualification exams by trade workers who are not certified. In other words, people who weren't originally certified now want to become certified, and that's a reflection of the fact that the legislation is there. So they want to upgrade or make sure that they've got the skills to be employed. It's very important, and that has doubled in the last three years as a result of this policy. It's good for B.C.

[8:30]

J. Dalton: The minister is always quick to get to his feet and applaud the virtues of the government and their economic policy, or whatever.

An Hon. Member: Explain that credit rating.

J. Dalton: Let's forget the credit rating. The credit rating is not the issue in the Labour minister's estimates, I can assure this committee.

Another function of the development branch that I think we have to be looking ahead on regarding a couple of issues deal with providing policy and writing support to independent commissions. They give the construction industry as an example. I presume that the Kelleher-Ready report on the construction industry review was conducted out of this branch.

Hon. M. Sihota: We provided writing and research assistance to the committee, but apart from that, they were on an independent basis. As I said, the number of FTEs in that branch has gone from 12 to 11, and the budget has gone down from $819,000 to $788,000. So we are doing as much work with fewer people, which explains why we have such a good credit rating.

J. Dalton: I do have the same figures in front of me that the minister has, of course, and I thank him for drawing to the committee's attention the decrease of one FTE -- admittedly, a useful decrease in the budget.

Just while we are on the construction industry review panel, can the minister advise the committee what the cost of that review was? How did it actually impact as a cost item?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not completed yet. It's estimated to be in at about $150,000.

J. Dalton: On that same topic, can we anticipate some specific follow-up from the recommendations that have come out of the Kelleher-Ready report?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we can. It may be the prequalification concept that you and I discussed today, hon. member. I would hope that there will be some ability to introduce legislation later on in this fiscal year -- maybe even next week.

J. Dalton: I would somehow doubt that we are going to see any more legislation in this current session, but maybe the Government House Leader has another idea in mind.

The other thing I want to touch upon is that in the same development branch area, workers' compensation is also itemized. Would it be a possibility that this branch would be providing advice or assistance of any nature to the royal commission on workers' compensation that the minister is about to put together?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. They might provide some information, but basically the answer is no.

J. Dalton: I take it that's probably because the minister would like the royal commission to be completely independent of the ministry; I assume that would be the philosophy.

I want to move into two other areas. One is apprenticeship. It's perhaps in apprenticeship in the following topic.... I also want to canvass the Labour Force Development Board, whereby it will be very useful for this minister, in the two capacities of Labour and Education, if things work out the way I hope they will.

Under the apprenticeship initiatives program, there are several functions or responsibilities, all of which impact on apprenticeship in one form or another. For example, there's working in partnership with the Provincial Apprenticeship Board and, maybe even more importantly, because I think this is really where the opportunities are just now starting to open up -- and the Minister of Education was asked this in his previous estimates -- expanding the secondary school apprenticeship program. I believe we don't need to go over that old ground; I can check the Blues .

But I think the minister was asked, for example, how many students are now in the secondary school apprenticeship program. I'm just putting that into the record to make sure that the minister understands that this side of the House, just like his side, is very concerned about the application and, hopefully, the expansion of apprenticeships: high school, particularly in grades 11 and 12; post-secondary, obviously; and in the workforce itself -- which, of course, is his responsibility as the Labour minister.

[ Page 1713 ]

I do note a couple of figures here that I would like the minister to comment upon. I was advised at a briefing his staff very kindly gave us that at the moment we have approximately 14,500 apprenticeships in this province. The objective is to elevate that to 20,000, which is apparently what we had about ten years ago. I'm wondering, in the context of these very lofty objectives -- and I would applaud them if we can meet them -- why it is that the apprenticeship budget decreased from $11.9 million last year to $11.3 million this year. I think there may be a dichotomy there as to how we're going to realize these elevated numbers, with a smaller budget with in which to work.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The reason we did that was because we were asked to cut our budget by about 2 to 21/2 percent. We did that. We felt that this was an area where we could get efficiencies, and we could probably do as effective, if not more effective a job without having to increase our expenditures.

J. Dalton: With particular regard to the Provincial Apprenticeship Board itself, I have been advised that the board members receive a per diem of $200. Does this board meet on a regular basis? How many board members are there?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are 22 people on the board. They meet once a month.

J. Dalton: I see in the list of items that this board can make recommendations to the minister -- apprenticeships in high school is the particular itemized subject. Again, I'm happy to see that there. I think it's long overdue that we turn our minds to the opportunities for people in the senior grades of high school to get out into the workforce, to learn and to earn at the same time. It's not just a post-secondary or co-op or workforce initiative; it has to come at the younger ages. So I'm hoping -- and I'll just make this observation as we see the functions of this board -- that all of the efforts through the high school and post-secondary initiatives are being coordinated.

I don't know whether it's even appropriate.... Maybe I should ask the minister this, and I will: would the minister contemplate shifting the apprenticeship function and maybe the Labour Force Development Board from his Labour portfolio to his Education, Skills and Training portfolio? I think, personally, they would be better served in that portfolio.

Hon. M. Sihota: This may come as a surprise to some, but actually, I've had those discussions. Secondly, let me also say that I'm going to be meeting with the Apprenticeship Board to have those kinds of discussions, and also to talk to them about the Labour Force Market Development Board in that context.

J. Dalton: It's good that there's some discussion among the minister's officials and the minister himself as to whether these functions we now find in the Labour portfolio might not be better rejigged into the Education portfolio. At the end of the day, of course, it's all public money, and that's what we're debating in the estimates. But I think we have to be very concerned about the best opportunities this public money will provide.

Just one other item about apprenticeship, and then I'll move into the Labour Force Development Board. In an overview that has been provided to us of the staffing of the Ministry of Education, we are told that ministry also provides administrative support to the additional 336 FTEs who are in the Ministry of Labour. Now, I'm a bit confused, and this is why I'm raising the point. Why is it that in the overview for the Ministry of Education we are told that administrative support is being provided to the Labour ministry? Are we not duplicating our efforts?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's exactly the opposite. We're picking up efficiencies. We're using the administrative and financial services component of the Ministry of Education to do the same work for Labour, and therefore we're actually saving money by consolidating the operations. It actually allows Labour to have a little bit more money its budget for some other areas that would otherwise be cut.

J. Dalton: I believe the minister actually answered my next question, which I don't have to ask, then, which was going to be: what was the administrative support? He's satisfied me in that.

A very important topic that I want just to spend a few minutes on is the Labour Force Development Board. Members opposite needn't get excited. I will not be lengthy, but I think this is an important item that we want to make sure we canvass before we leave these estimates.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: I hear some sort of side comment from the Government House Leader, but we're not going to worry about that.

There are two or three items that I want to draw the committee's attention to, and then we'll be able to move into other estimates, I'm sure. There is a significant budget item for this development board. It's $1.5 million, with a few extra dollars in change, in the '96-97 estimates. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised to see the extent of that figure. Can the minister explain to the committee why the sum of $1.5 million is devoted to this board?

Hon. M. Sihota: They're doing a number of studies, and work with the private sector. They contract out a good chunk of their work. They're doing some surveys which can be expensive, with employee-hours. For example, they are surveying a large number of employers in British Columbia to ascertain whether or not the graduates which leave the system have the skills that they are looking for. That is a major exercise that we need some answers to so as to make sure there is some symmetry between what we're training people for and what employers require. That's a cost item, but it's one which I'll defend, because I think we have not had that kind of data before, and we need it.

J. Dalton: Well, I'm hoping, of course, as we all are on this side, that this will be money well spent. I have with me the Training for What? document that we talked about in the Education estimates. The minister told this committee "Training for Whom?" is in the planning and development stage, so we'll certainly look forward to seeing that. I am heartened, and I want the committee to know that I can see a lot of positive potential -- I would say potential, hon. Chair, and I'll explain why in a moment -- that will come out of these initiatives.

But again, I think they may be better directed into the Education portfolio, because I just have a fear that they may be lost somewhere in the Ministry of Labour and never see the light of day.

[ Page 1714 ]

When I read, for example, in the

summary of some of the recommendations that the board has put together "five key gaps in the learning system: skills, diversity, relevance, capacity and funding, and accountability.... " Well, God bless them, they're right on -- particularly accountability. I love that word, because.... I don't know that the government understands it, but certainly on this side we try and reinforce it. So there are some very good initiatives there, and that's fine.

[8:45]

However, the other day I was going through my bookshelves, just cleaning out a few odds and ends, and I came across a not dissimilar document that a previous minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training -- or Training and Technology, as it then was.... This was Tom Perry, who, of course, is no longer an MLA. He commissioned a report which was put out by the B.C. Human Resource Development Project. In November of 1992, this was tabled by the minister. I don't know that this thing got anywhere. Finally, it got off my bookshelf, because I just found it the other day.

This report, for example, talks about apprenticeships. I don't know if any government official ever advanced this thing forward, to put the recommendations or the suggestions together. For example, the report urges the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, which we just talked about, to identify the actions necessary to ensure that the apprenticeship system is recognized as a full partner in the adult learning system we propose. I certainly applaud that. Just for the record, is the minister aware of this document?

Has it received any breath of life, or is it sitting around on somebody's shelf somewhere, like it was on mine?

Hon. M. Sihota: The report predates my time. That report led to the establishment of the Labour Force Development Board.

J. Dalton: Then I would just recommend the reading of that to the minister and his officials, because even though I haven't had the opportunity recently.... I would have to refresh my memory, but there were some very good, or at least generic, thoughts there on the topic of apprenticeship, training and things of that nature.

I have just one other question for the minister. Before I ask it, I want to thank his staff for their patience. We on this side always appreciate the fact that these gentlemen and women can sit through these estimates for hour after hour, yet they always look so attentive and keen. And I know that they provide good information.

Earlier, my colleague from Richmond East was asking about the Workers Compensation Review Board, and she made an observation about the criminal injury issue, which is, I think, wrongly placed with the Workers Compensation Review Board; she made similar observations. The minister did inform the committee that there is ongoing examination through the Attorney General ministry and his own ministry about the implications of this and the need for a change in the law. Is there a mandate within the Labour ministry to be actively involved in any proposed changes, or is that, strictly speaking, a function of the Attorney General?

Hon. M. Sihota: We are part of the committee which is looking at it.

J. Dalton: I'm glad to hear that. I've corresponded with some people who have been directly affected by the act. We think there are some areas that are missing in that act. The Attorney General's officials have recognized that.

Those are all the questions I have. I thank the minister and his officials for their information. We look forward to progressing further on the issues that we've canvassed next year.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $36,520,759 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

On vote 9: minister's office, $332,000.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm pleased to rise and begin the estimates debate with regard to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. I'll make a few opening statements while staff are arriving. I'm proud of our achievements in the British Columbia Treaty Commission process and also, outside of that, in the historic agreement-in-principle which we reached with the Nisga'a in February. I can say with confidence that we will continue to make progress in treaty-making through open, inclusive and well-managed negotiations involving British Columbians from start to finish.

Before I provide you with a progress report, I want to say a few words about my ministry, about what we do and what our responsibilities are. We lead and represent the province in negotiating fair, affordable and just treaties with first nations. We are responsible for pretreaty consultation with third parties and for keeping the public informed about the treaty process. We negotiate important cost-sharing arrangements with the federal government to ensure Ottawa pays its fair share, and we provide support on aboriginal issues to other ministries and Crown corporations and foster working relations between government ministries and first nations.

Our mission is to work with first nations, the federal government, other provincial ministries and indeed all British Columbians to build relationships between British Columbians and aboriginal people that are based on equality and respect, to enable first nations to become self-reliant and to live in healthy communities, and to ensure that British Columbians enjoy the social and economic benefits of cooperation and certainty. To this end, we support any government measure or initiative that ends the archaic federal Indian Act and puts us on a new footing for the future.

When I reported to this Legislature in April of 1995, we had initialled framework agreements with four first nations. Since that time we have made significant progress. We have now signed framework agreements with 11 first nations, which means they are now in stage 4 of a six-stage process. That means these tables have decided on the subjects of negotiation and a negotiation

schedule and are now working on an agreement-in-principle, the major agreement. Forty-seven first nations are in the process. Twenty-two tables have been declared ready in stage 2 and are working on stage 3, framework agreements. Openness protocols are being signed, and local and regional consultation groups are being established wherever treaty-making is underway.

Next year will bring even greater progress. Our government is listening very closely to what British Columbians are saying about treaty negotiations in their area. They are also telling us to get on with treaty-making, and I believe the record clearly shows that we are listening, making progress and moving forward. I think the discussion in the House today, with the launching of the Select Standing Committee on

[ Page 1715 ]

Aboriginal Affairs, is an indication of another instrument that is available to us that will be very valuable with regard to this process of engaging all British Columbians.

Our goal is to build bridges and solutions, and to listen carefully while we are at it. One of our bridges was reached earlier this year on March 22 when the province, Canada and the Nisga'a signed an agreement-in-principle. It was a historic moment for all British Columbians, as the first agreement-in-principle signed this century. When we achieved that agreement-in-principle, we set out to inform the public about its content, and we have done so.

As well, when the negotiators begin their final discussions, we will have a set of openness procedures in place that will guide the Nisga'a talks to a final treaty and ratification by all parties. I am confident that with this spirit of openness and consultation we can work toward the first modern-day treaty settlement in this province, one that is fair and affordable to all British Columbians and one that will bring the Nisga'a citizens into the legal and economic mainstream of the province, for the benefit of all.

I want to digress for a moment and talk about the other side of treaties, the new opportunities that are flowing from treaty-making, and our efforts to build bridges and establish new relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. One of the best examples of the new economic opportunities flowing from the treaty process is found in joint ventures which are being established today by those who have the wisdom to see the benefit of this new cooperation.

There are numerous examples of efforts by first nations in B.C. to gain economic independence through partnerships with the non-aboriginal business community. These include Weldwood of Canada Ltd., joint ventures in the Burns Lake area, and Lignum partnerships, which include Ecolink Forest Services, Natasewed Enterprises Ltd., and Chendi Enterprises Ltd. We recognize the significant benefit that such initiatives have in fostering stronger relationships between first nations and non-aboriginal businesses. The presence of first nations in the social and economic mainstream of the province will benefit all of us.

Business realizes this and so does the government of British Columbia.

While British Columbians want us to move forward with treaties, they also want us to manage our resources and keep the costs down. I believe we are handling our responsibilities in that area effectively and responsibly. In the 1996-97 budget there is a decrease in funding. To be precise, the ministry's estimates for '95-96 were $33.709 million, while the total estimated for '96-97 is $31.709 million, a decrease of 5.1 percent.

This budget guarantees that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs will continue to fund the coordination and management of our province's participation in negotiating treaties with first nations. Provincial negotiating teams will do their job, and consultation with British Columbians will continue.

As you can see, once again we have an ambitious program planned for '96-97. The ministry will continue to make substantial progress on treaty negotiations, using an effective, efficient and inclusive process with meaningful input from local governments, the general public and third parties. Together, we have an opportunity to bring about fundamental change with aboriginal peoples in this province and an opportunity to create a stronger, fairer and more prosperous province for all British Columbians.

I believe that all political parties represented in this Legislature share in that goal and are interested in participating in this lively process that we involve ourselves in in estimates in order to assist in achieving that goal.

I want to indicate that present with me in the House today is Philip Halkett, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; Joy Illington, assistant deputy minister; and Mr. Richard Inglis, a negotiator on the Nisga'a team.

M. de Jong: First of all, greetings and welcome to the minister and his staff, who have been waiting some time to participate in what I know will be stimulating, exciting and perhaps even entertaining debate regarding the minister's estimates.

The minister concluded his introductory remarks with a very apt statement. That is his belief that all members in this House share his and, I think, his government's desire to move toward resolution of these matters. That is certainly the case with respect to members of the party I represent, the official opposition. The destination we seek to arrive at.... We have a common notion of what that is. That is not to say that there aren't alternative routes to get there, and that if we have some differences about how we will arrive at that destination, that is part and parcel of what these discussions commencing here this evening will be about.

But I think it is appropriate that we begin this debate and this discussion on the evening of the day in which the minister sought to activate the standing committee and to involve, in a very real and tangible way, members from both sides of the House in the treaty-negotiating process. The cynics would stand here and lament the fact that it's taken this amount of time. Who knows? Maybe through the course of this debate I will descend to that level of cynicism at some point. But today we should, I suppose, celebrate the fact that that process has commenced, as I think well it should.

I won't dwell on the comments that were made in the House earlier today, except to say and to emphasize to all members, and to those watching, that there is a genuine commitment on the part of members for the opposition to provide constructive input into that process, to provide input that will assist rather than present obstacles to achieving final resolution. Though, as I say, there may be differences that arise in the views of British Columbians during the course of our receiving submissions, that point should be well understood and that point, I hope, is taken for granted.

On this side of the House, at least, there is no questioning the wisdom of proceeding toward the certainty and the benefits that will accrue from concluding these agreements.

[9:00]

Having said that, perhaps I can just take a few moments to query the minister about the standing committee -- some nuts-and-bolts items with respect to the budget. Is that budget provided for through this ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It's provided for through the Legislative Assembly.

M. de Jong: Will staff from this ministry be attached to the committee during the course of its deliberations?

Hon. J. Cashore: If that were to be the case, it would be subject to discussions that would take place within the committee in working out the kind of arrangements they would be establishing to carry out their work.

M. de Jong: Having commented favourably on the decision to activate the standing committee, I guess I do have to ask the minister how he responds to the criticism he has heard -- from me, from opposition members and, I suppose more significantly, from other interested parties and third parties -- that there would be less cynicism about the process generally

[ Page 1716 ]

and about the sincerity of the government's commitment to listen and respond to submissions from others were this discussion taking place prior to the cabinet having signed off on the agreement-in-principle. He has heard that argument and that submission from others.

He did have a choice, with the greatest respect. The agreement-in-principle was negotiated, and there is this sense that it was then rushed to cabinet prior to the election. He will, I'm sure, deny that that had any influence on the timing. Yet he is confronted by this lingering doubt in the minds of many in the public that submissions, representations after the fact, are destined to fall on deaf ears. I wonder if he could respond to that criticism, which he has certainly heard.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is, of course, cynicism expressed from persons who hold a certain perspective, and I respect that. There is a spectrum of opinions among the larger community, however, and in that spectrum there are those who say we should be moving more quickly, those who express the views that the hon. member has just characterized. I think that the significant thing is that we have entered into this process. It's an important process, but it in no way negates the very valid steps that have been taken, in many ways started, by the member for Peace River North toward the resolution of a very longstanding issue.

One of the factors has been that the interest of the public has increased as these issues have come more and more into the public eye. I think the happy thing about that is that the public is saying: "This might affect us. Therefore we want to know more about it." I think this is very timely.

M. de Jong: I guess what I'm looking for and what others have sought from the minister is an explanation or some justification, if that's the correct term.... What was the compelling reason in the minister's mind for taking this to cabinet for approval not just prior to this process of consultation but...? In our earlier discussions this session, the minister pointed to, I think he said, the 70 or 90 smaller meetings that have taken place since the agreement-in-principle was concluded. What compelling reason can he offer for moving to that stage, in terms of obtaining cabinet approval, prior to those meetings and prior to this process, which I suspect was in his mind even then?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if the hon. member is referring to the timing on the agreement-in-principle, the compelling reason is that in government you have a responsibility to make decisions that move the public agenda forward. This is the compelling reason this has been done. We knew that those who sought to criticize, in many instances -- not all -- had two positions available to them. One was that if we concluded the agreement-in-principle prior to the election, they would say that we were doing that for crass political reasons.

The other position available to them was that if we had not concluded it prior to the election, they were in a position to say that we had something to hide and were afraid to go to the public with it.

Therefore it behooves us in all of these issues to get away from election timing, depoliticize the process, do the right thing and recognize that there is a process going on out there where the public has its views, the public's views are being heard, those views are being brought back to government, and government, in the process that we're engaged in here tonight, hon. member, and in the process that was launched today, hears those views. It's my view that the more we can depoliticize that process, the better.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister doesn't misunderstand. I'm not quarrelling, necessarily, with the chronology of events that led to the initialling of the agreement-in-principle itself by him, by the federal minister and by representatives of the Nisga'a people. But the member for Vancouver-Fraserview is here and, in all likelihood, will chair the committee that travels the province that I and the member for Richmond East and others will be on. How does the minister respond to the suggestion that by virtue of the cabinet having accepted and signed off on the agreement-in- principle...?

This, by the way, will not just be an argument presented by those cynics who question certain of the provisions but by the Nisga'a negotiators themselves. They will suggest that this, then, is the deal; you can consult the minister and the government of British Columbia all you like, but this is the deal that we have concluded; this is the agreement-in-principle that cabinet has approved, and we're not prepared to countenance any significant move -- "we" being the Nisga'a negotiating team -- away from that agreement-in-principle which has been approved by the cabinet of the government of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Cashore: I answered this question, for the record, at the time of the supply bill estimates, and my answer is the same. It won't be long now until the negotiators are engaged in drafting the final draft that would go forward for ratification. That drafting will be informed by the discussions that have taken place, that are taking place and that are about to take place in various contexts, including the context of the select standing committee.

I have no hesitation in saying that I feel very positive about the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. That's my own position on that; I believe that it stands on a very solid foundation and that we are able to respond to the concerns that have been raised. Having said that, it would be foolish for any three parties to a tripartite process not to come up with an improvement on a tripartite basis, if an improvement was there that had been identified. It would simply be foolish not to take advantage of that opportunity, so that remains to be seen. I don't think we can gain much by being hypothetical about that.

But the work that is yet to be done, which is significant work, will be informed by the public dialogue that is underway.

M. de Jong: The minister has delved tentatively and cautiously into the realm of the hypothetical. But that, of course, is the question the members of the committee, which has been commissioned today, will be asking themselves: what is the minister's response going to be if and when he is confronted by a report that recommends in certain limited cases, or in broader cases, moving in a direction diametrically opposed to that which exists presently in the agreement-in-principle? Surely he recognizes that this is a very real possibility. How is the minister purporting to present that sort of scenario to the other parties, most particularly the Nisga'a tribal council?

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that this is a discussion that will take place within the committee, but I just want to say that I'm not intending to speculate on hypothetical future possibilities among a huge array of possibilities. I'm simply not going to indulge in that. We will obviously have the wisdom of the advice of the select standing committee in whatever report they do end up putting together, and I look forward to that.

M. de Jong: I guess it's the age-old question that members of parliamentary committees, and probably more

par-

[ Page 1717 ]

ticularly individuals in groups that appear before those committees, have. That is, to put it bluntly: are they wasting their time? Take a delegation or an individual who makes recommendations and submissions to that committee that are not consistent with the directions presently spelled out in the agreement-in-principle -- of course, we're restricting our comments now to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and not dealing with the broader Treaty Commission negotiations. Is a person engaging in that manner of debate and submission before the committee better to save their breath?

I know the minister is a skilled politician and won't let me drag him into this hypothetical realm. But that, of course, will be the discussion, and he says that that will be the discussion around the committee table. I hope it's not. I hope that is not the concern that members of the committee have -- that is, whether the efforts they are undertaking, the deliberations that they are engaged in, are going to be tempered with a view to whether their final report is saleable to the minister.

I'm afraid that seems to be the tenor of some of the minister's remarks, and that is something the members of the committee should be cognizant of as they receive submissions. I hope that's not what the minister is suggesting.

[9:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: That is not the tenor of the minister's remarks. The tenor of the minister's remarks are that I have a great deal of confidence in the members of that committee, without regard to the party they represent. I believe that, as I said, their initial discussions will be canvassing some of the very important areas that the hon. member is now referencing. I believe it's absolutely essential that that committee build a working relationship and mutual respect in the early stages. That is fulfilled in the report that is filed by the committee.

The other thing I realize in saying that is the variety of perspectives I have heard from British Columbians on the Nisga'a AIP and on other issues coming out -- the kinds of issues that have been raised in the discussion around the Nisga'a AIP. The wide spectrum of opinions that are out there in the public are going to be, I think, a very interesting and challenging array of opinions for that committee to come to terms with as it does its task.

I have to point out that I look upon my relationship to that committee as arm's-length. I think that is very important. At the same time, I hope to remain in communication with all the members of the committee, because I'm vitally interested in its ongoing work. I look forward to interim reports and a final report.

The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if I might just intervene briefly to remind us all that on this topic, the standing order.... We had a motion this afternoon, Motion 41, which dealt with this, and there was some debate about it. The topic at hand is the estimates of the ministry, which deal with administrative issues. I would submit that technically many of the issues on the treaty belong with the standing committee as opposed to with the minister, who just said it's at arm's-length. I'm just reminding everybody of that. It's a delicate issue right now, and I would just like to suggest that folks keep that in mind.

M. de Jong: I should signal, and I'm happy to.... Well, maybe I won't be happy to take direction. We do intend to canvass the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle in detail. I think the minister is aware of that, and I don't think, from my understanding, at least, that he takes issue with that. Insofar as the discussions we're having are relevant to that process and the fact that the ministry will certainly be devoting resources on an ongoing basis to those negotiations, I think they're relevant.

I wonder, then.... I think I know the answer to this. If the minister will confirm it, I think this would not be unusual. The minister clearly is taking the position -- and he can confirm this on the record -- that he will not feel bound; he will feel persuaded. I won't put words in his mouth, but he's not going to feel bound by recommendations that arise out of the standing committee today.

Hon. J. Cashore: In a position such as mine, I and my colleagues are judged by the way in which the public judges us in seeing how we respond to such reports. I think that is part of the process that ensures that such a report would receive the appropriate consideration.

M. de Jong: Finally, by way of preliminary issues relevant to the committee and the Nisga'a negotiations, the minister, in the motion that was before the House this morning and in his comments, spoke to the fact that he expects a report in a timely manner and as quickly as possible. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether the commencement of the final negotiating phase will be held in abeyance until this committee has reported out to him.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will only say that we will take one step at a time when it comes to the work that we must do around leading to ratification of the agreement-in-principle. It would be highly unlikely that we would be at the stage of ratifying the agreement-in-principle in this House without the timing of the reporting of that committee having been achieved. But apart from that, this is hypothetical future speculation, and I don't think it gets us very far.

M. de Jong: I guess the simple question is: when does the minister anticipate that negotiations will commence, relative to the final treaty? When is that scheduled? Is there a date when that is scheduled to resume?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those negotiations will start this fall.

M. de Jong: Are those negotiations separate and apart from the negotiations that are presently underway dealing with the "openness protocol," as the minister has termed it?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct. There is some work going on at side tables at the present time in preparation for the date when those negotiations get going again. Those are tripartite.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate, in the weeks that have passed since we canvassed this issue in the special warrant debate, what progress has been made with respect to finalization of the openness protocol?

Hon. J. Cashore: We are hoping it will be finalized this month, in the week of the 19th.

M. de Jong: That optimistic outlook is a result of how many meetings over the past six or seven weeks?

Hon. J. Cashore: There have been three tripartite sessions.

[ Page 1718 ]

M. de Jong: The presentation of the conclusion of that openness protocol will immediately be made open to all, is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. The answer to that question is that it will be. I look forward to that, because whenever we are able to initial or sign off an openness protocol, that's a good day for our government.

M. de Jong: Is it the minister's position that main-table tripartite discussions, if I can use that term, relative to negotiating the final treaty terms should be open to the public?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Then, if I can return to the question that launched us on this avenue, do I understand correctly that the minister anticipates that those negotiations relative to concluding the final treaty terms, given the time line he's laid out for us, will be taking place contemporaneous with the workings of the standing committee?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Does it trouble the minister at all that there may be some concerns, expressed by those interested in the deliberations of the standing committee, that the issue being discussed by that committee in Prince George on a particular evening may be the subject of negotiations at the Nisga'a table elsewhere the very same evening?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a good point. I think the committee itself will be doing the logical thing and addressing that issue and that logic will be operative in other processes that are ongoing.

M. de Jong: I don't think I understood that answer. The problem, of course, emanates from the fact that people making submissions to the standing committee would like to be left with the impression that there is some prospect of those submissions having an impact on the final outcome of negotiations. If the negotiations on the issue that concern such individuals are taking place before or during the time that they are before the standing committee, there's very little prospect of that actually taking place.

Members of the committee, including myself and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, will be challenged with the task of assuring people that their time spent in front of that committee is time well spent, with some prospect of influencing the final outcome. I'm having difficulty understanding how that can be the case if negotiations are taking place at the same time.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the contrary, the fact is that those two processes ongoing at the same time are not in conflict. It would be a problem if government was in a position of trying to ram something through in an untimely way, in order to try to prevent the enjoying of the value or efficacy of what was coming through the committee process. That will not be the case.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, if we can maybe embark on our journey through the pages of the Nisga'a agreement.... I should say at the outset that I am indebted to the member for Richmond-Steveston, who has done extensive work in this area and has been of great assistance in terms of providing input and background material on a document that at times can be overwhelming for those like myself unaccustomed to some of the parlance.

In general terms, I wonder if the minister could respond to the suggestion that has been made that even calling this an agreement-in-principle is a bit misleading. There's no doubt that the project the two levels of government and the Nisga'a people have embarked upon is an ambitious and complicated one and, for obvious reasons, a difficult one to bring to conclusion.

But when you look at the agreement as a whole and at the number of provisions where there are no specifics, and when you compare this document with some of the framework agreements we have seen arise out of the Treaty Commission process, an argument can be made that really what we have here is a glorified framework agreement. By virtue of what is missing -- the detail that doesn't exist -- it's a bit of a stretch to refer to this as an agreement-in-principle. We may be, right on the face of it, misleading people and unnecessarily raising expectations by presenting it as that type of a document.

Hon. J. Cashore: I completely disagree with the conclusion of the hon. member. This agreement-in-principle is consistent with the definition in the B.C. Claims Task Force report: "...which will form the basis of a treaty." An agreement-in-principle is a document which will form the basis of a treaty; that's exactly what it is. It goes on to say it sets out "the salient points of the agreement between the parties."

[9:30]

It's interesting that this criticism can cut both ways. There has been great criticism of the northern agreements. I understand, and I'm sure the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston knows this very well and perhaps can comment on it himself, that the typical agreement-in-principle from the northern agreements is about that high, with a stack of supplementary appendices that is much higher.

One of the things that I believe was generally agreed upon, when we talked to the advisory committees and to first nations was that we wanted a document that would be street-ready and understandable to the general public, and we believe we have achieved that. We do not want this to be the domain of the lawyers -- with all due respect to the two gentlemen in the front row at the present time. It needs to be a document such that -- indeed, as you, as members of the committee, go about conducting your deliberations will find -- people are able to discuss with you issues that are understandable.

Therefore this agreement-in-principle is exactly what it was intended to be, and I believe that it fulfils the task it has.

Also, I would point out, from some of the concerns that have been stated about the agreement-in-principle somehow being a final document, that it would seem that the argument the member is making now would acknowledge that the work to be done in the final drafting is indeed significant work.

M. de Jong: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this doesn't hinge on length as much as it does on the substance of what's included in the pages of the document. My understanding of an agreement-in-principle -- and I don't presume to apply any sort of legal definition to this.... You should be able to look at an agreement-in-principle and say: "These are the principles that will be enshrined in the final agreement." It would be a final agreement but for the fact that we have to draft the legal text that sets out what our intentions

[ Page 1719 ]

are. I think the minister has to agree that there are some big holes in this document. There are some areas where there is no signal; there is no structure from which you can then move to defining the final terms and adopting the legal text. Where those holes exist -- where there are no specifics -- I guess I have to suggest and submit to the minister that that is because there hasn't been any agreement.

I think the minister must agree with me that it didn't take ten years for the parties to agree that the final treaty should bring certainty. I think that's a trite point. I think there was probably agreement on that point -- at least I hope there was agreement on that point -- from the outset. The fact that the parties haven't been able to secure, in some terms, in some sense, what the terminology will be, suggests to me that it's because they couldn't. It's because there was no meeting of the minds on that point. That begs asking the question: what happens if they still can't find agreement?

If they couldn't find agreement on that basic principle, how are we now to expect them to move to drafting the legal text? They don't have the fundamentals. Is that going to lead, on a point of such crucial importance as the one I've just mentioned.... Does that threaten final settlement, in and of itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the question is based on a wrong assumption, and that is the assumption that there's a wide gulf between the parties, where there's a need for further work to be done on the technical reading -- on a technical issue. The opposite is the case: there was a meeting of minds. The hon. member uses the phrase "meeting of the minds." There was a meeting of minds, and there was an agreement that there was work to be done to develop the precise legal wording in order to encompass the issue. That is the case in the vast majority of aspects of the document where there is further work to be done.

I want to thank the members for the opportunity to begin this debate, but by agreement we now move into some other business of the House. I know that we will continue this part of our discussion.

I move that the committee now rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 19.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1996

The House in committee on Bill 19; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: I want to make a few comments about

section 1, which I suppose you could say is half the substance of this act. Since the act really doesn't have a lot more to it, that would be a very profound statement.

I want to put my remarks about this particular provision into context for a moment. I don't think the debate this act raises is a debate about urban British Columbia versus rural British Columbia. I think to some extent, perhaps, the second reading debate could have left some people with the impression that that was the issue. The issue in fact raised by this provision is one about what's in the best interests of all British Columbians. I believe that all of us here, whether we come from rural ridings or urban ridings, are qualified to speak to that question.

We understand from the history of electoral boundaries issues in British Columbia that we need some balance. I suppose the question I have, which I'll come to more specifically again in a minute, is really: what is it about the current act which does not strike that balance in a way that is still as appropriate today as it was in 1989, when the act was made?

We're going to come to some of the particular issues of concern to some of the members in the course of discussing both

section 1 and

section 2. I'm mindful of the concerns expressed by the people who represent rural ridings that there are difficulties involved in providing adequate representation for all the constituents who live in those ridings. But I also think we need to look at what this act and this

section are trying to do in a historical context.

I note that as recently as 1960, which really is not all that long ago, there were only 52 members in this House. We now have 75 members. Certainly from one perspective the result of that is obvious. Across the province, if you took an average, electoral ridings have been getting smaller over the years. I think that's something to bear in mind when we listen to people today express concerns, which I accept as legitimate, about the difficulties of transportation and communication that exist in rural ridings.

I don't deny the legitimacy of those complaints, but I guess I have to say that things are a whole lot better than they used to be. The transportation is a whole lot easier than it used to be, and there has been tremendous improvement -- in fact, I'd say a revolution -- in communication, with the result that, in my own experience anyway, and I know it is a somewhat different experience.... In my riding, people can get hold of me from wherever they are in the world, by any number of means: fax, E-mail, correspondence in the ordinary mail, and so on.

I understand the concern of the members who live in more far-flung districts of British Columbia, but I'm not sure those concerns.... I guess the fundamental question is whether they in fact require that we move to an amendment of

an act, which I want to say something about in just a second. We've already said, and I said it last night and I repeat it again, that the issue of the needs as expressed by members outside the lower mainland of British Columbia needs to be looked at in the overall context of fiscal restraint -- which we've heard a lot about and which I don't think is given much respect in this bill.

Those general observations take me to examine, first of all, the original

section in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which is the

section that this

section proposes to amend --

section 3. What that

section does, in its current form, is set out the function of the commission. That function is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly about the area, the boundaries and the names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. I think I understand what that means, and I must say that I was assisted in my understanding by reading what was said about this bill during the course of the first reading debate when the bill was introduced in this House in 1989. At that time, the Minister of Government Services, who introduced the bill, said things which the current Attorney General's predecessor actually agreed with wholeheartedly

[ Page 1720 ]

when he spoke to the bill in second reading. As we know, this bill did in fact receive the unanimous support of the House when it was introduced and passed. This is what he said:

"The bill also establishes an independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to regularly review electoral boundaries so that they will continue to reflect the basic principles of fair and balanced representation for all British Columbians. The new Electoral Boundaries Commission will carry out its mandate in accordance with the principles specified in the bill. These regular reviews will occur after every two general elections and will ensure that the boundaries of the electoral districts reflect the changes in population that have occurred in the interim and that the adjustments are made on a purely non-partisan basis."

I think that is a fair statement of what this act did in 1989. Frankly, I think it applies with equal vigour today as it did then. I note with interest that the government that introduced this bill foresaw, among other things, that which was surely obvious: that there would be changes in population and that they wouldn't take place gradually, over the course of time, but rather they would take place constantly. So what we had was, in 1989,

an act that was drawn up intending to accommodate the variety of issues that affect the organization of electoral boundaries, including the changes in population in British Columbia.

[9:45]

The act was welcomed as providing a mechanism for dealing with changes in population. The mechanism was the commission. The interesting thing is that the commission, the mechanism provided for in this act, has never been used; it has never been tried.

What was thought of as being a great idea in 1989 and was unanimously welcomed by the members of this House who had just embarked upon, as had all British Columbians, a time-consuming process of anxiously considering problems with redistribution -- a problem which had, in fact, led to litigation which resulted in an important, ground-breaking and precedential decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and which led to this act.... This act says: "The first commission shall be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this

section comes into force." Well, here we are. We are in the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this

section has come into force. So what the government and all members of this House foresaw in