Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 16, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 150

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. H. Bains

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Q’waxsem Place supportive housing in Campbell River

M. Babchuk

ALS awareness and research

S. Bond

Chinese Canadian Museum

H. Yao

Dave Hamilton

I. Paton

Protestors at Southern Okanagan Secondary School

R. Russell

Helen Fathers

T. Halford

Oral Questions

Decision on fees for freedom-of-information requests

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

M. de Jong

Telus Health services

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Access to information on rebuilding of Lytton

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

Access to information and minister’s advisory council on children with support needs

T. Halford

Hon. M. Dean

Budget lockup capacity

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Flood response and temporary housing in Princeton

L. Doerkson

Hon. M. Farnworth

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Skilled Trades BC Act

Hon. A. Kang

C. Oakes

A. Mercier

E. Ross

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mark

R. Merrifield

S. Chant

D. Davies

B. Bailey

T. Wat

Hon. G. Chow

B. Stewart

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

T. Stone: Well, it’s that time of the year, the beginning of the spring session and the arrival of the legislative interns. On behalf of the official opposition caucus, I’m really pleased to welcome the interns that will be joining our caucus during this session and wanted to name them here today.

I won’t go through every detail of their bios, but I will say that when we met them this

morning, it was remarked by our leader — and I think there were a lot of nodding

heads in our caucus room…. Listening to them talk about their undergraduate and

graduate work, we started to feel a little inadequate about our own post-secondary

experiences and learnings.

I’m pleased to welcome Olivia Botelho. She has a public affairs and policy management

degree from Carleton University. Mary Heeg, political science honours from the

University of Victoria. Tiffany Lee, a BA in international relations and

Asian-Canadian and Asian migration studies and a master of management, a dual

degree from the University of British Columbia. Mitch Robinson, political science

honours, international studies and dialogue from Simon Fraser University. And

Margarita Rodriguez Sim­on, political science, legal studies and dialogue in

communications from Simon Fraser University.

Would this House please join us in welcoming our 2022 legislative interns.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 5, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022. This bill makes an important safety improvement to British Columbia’s workers compensation system to address systemic non-compliance and inadequate safety training in the asbestos abatement industry.

First, it establishes a new requirement that asbestos abatement contractors must be

licensed to operate in British Columbia. Second, it provides WorkSafeBC with

the authority to create a mandatory safety training program for workers and

contractors to perform asbestos abatement work so they can do their job

safely.

Asbestos exposure continues to endanger and cause harm and death to workers in B.C. Since 2000, more workers have died from asbestos-related occupational diseases in this province than from any other work-related injury or illnesses.

[1:40 p.m.]

Like other industry sectors, many participants in the asbestos abatement industry value workers and workplace safety. They recognize the hazards of the material that they’re handling and follow all the rules and regulations to ensure workers and others are protected from asbestos dust and fibres. However, the changes are necessary to address the non-compliant behaviour of some operators in B.C.’s asbestos abatement industry.

When combined with WorkSafeBC’s existing regulations and education and enforcement programs, this bill will support a regulatory framework that is better aligned to the highly hazardous nature of asbestos abatement work and will help ensure that the work is performed safely and in accordance with the law.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Q’WAXSEM PLACE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

M. Babchuk: I stand today to share that at this very moment in Campbell River, a

group of folks are celebrating their one-year anniversary of being housed.

Thanks to B.C. Housing and the city of Campbell River, Q’waxsem Place

supportive housing opened their doors last year and welcomed 50 people who had

been experiencing homelessness.

The building offers around-the-clock, on-site support for residents and

wraparound services like life skills training, employment assistance,

counselling, physical and mental health resources as well as addiction to

reco­very services.

The building is managed by the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society,

which works collaboratively with the community health services, Island Health,

mental health and substance abuse, and the public health team. For people who

live unhoused, it’s difficult to have regular, consistent access to physical

and mental health supports. These residents now have a place every day and

ongoing access to services they need, which is instrumental to their journey

for wellness.

This space is lovely. Its bright, beautifully appointed rooms include

several designed for people with accessi­bility issues. Each unit has a

kitchen. There’s also a commercial-grade kitchen where hot meals are prepared

and served twice daily, a wonderful designed communal space where residents can

watch TV and socialize, and a beautiful outdoor space complete with an

Indigenous-designed healing garden and vegetable garden that the tenants take

very, very seriously.

For residents, Q’waxsem Place is a home, a place where they can have

privacy, live safely and independently. It houses both men and women — 50

percent of whom iden­tify as Indigenous and 30 percent of whom are over

the age of 50, which reflects the ratio of people experiencing homelessness in

Campbell River.

Giving someone a home is the first step towards feeling security,

finding purpose and joy in their life and their ability to really feel like

part of the community. They are changing lives.

Would this chamber please join me in congratulating Q’waxsem Place on

their one-year anniversary.

ALS AWARENESS AND RESEARCH

S. Bond: My friend Mike McDonald posted these words recently: “With dignity and courage, my beloved big sister, Sara, left us on Tuesday, choosing her own time and place rather than letting ALS choose it for her.”

He goes on to describe Sara as an incredible person — a devoted mother of four; a

grandmother of three; a cherished daughter, sister and sister-in-law. She was

resourceful and a brilliant artist, returning to university, after having four

children, to pursue her career as an artist.

When Sara was diagnosed with ALS two years ago, she researched and reached out and found a community of patient advocates who had formed ALS Action Canada. And what a community of advocates it is.

ALS is a devastating disease. Today there is no hope of a recovery, and a diagnosis means

you will eventually lose the ability to talk, walk, eat and, ultimately,

breathe. ALS is currently a terminal diagnosis with no treatment or

cure.

I am moved and inspired by Sara’s efforts, as well as fierce advocates like Greg Gowe. Since being diagnosed with ALS in 2019, Greg has worked tirelessly to ensure that clinical trials take place in B.C. Establishing clinical trials here would give hope for those who live with ALS and their families. For many living with ALS, clinical trials offer the best source of hope, though they are offered in a select few provinces, not including B.C.

[1:45 p.m.]

While ALS has impacted Greg’s ability to speak, both he and Sara have been loud and clear about the responsibility we have in this Legislature and this province to make B.C. a leader in the efforts to end ALS.

Thank you, Sara and Greg and so many others, for having the courage to share your stories.

It’s time for us to act, to listen. Time is of the essence.

CHINESE CANADIAN MUSEUM

H. Yao: From 1881 to 1885, Chinese labour was needed to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the Chinese labour was no longer needed, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 was introduced. It was the first legislation in Canadian history to exclude immigration on the basis of ethnic background.

The Chinese had to pay at least $50 to come to Canada. Then it was raised to $100, then $500, and $500 was equal to the purchase of two homes. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, a.k.a. the Chinese Exclusion Act, replaced the 1885 act and basically banned all Chinese immigrants until it was repealed in 1947. Yet many Canadians, including young Chinese Canadians, do not know the history.

That’s why I’m glad our government is fulfilling another 2017 election promise by

providing $27.5 million to the Chinese Canadian Museum Society to support the

purchase of the historical Wing Sang building. It will be the home of a

permanent Chinese-Canadian museum. The Wing Sang building is not just the

oldest building in Vancouver’s Chinatown, but the building also reflects the

recent policies directed toward Chinese Canadians by previous governments

throughout B.C. history.

Establishing a Chinese-Canadian museum will strength­en Vancouver Chinatown’s UNESCO

nomination as a world heritage site. It will raise the global awareness,

understanding and appreciation of the historical significance for Chinese

Canadians.

Chinese Canadians play a vital role in our society. It was especially evident through the

COVID-19 pandemic. Many Chinese Canadians led the way in sharing the

im­portance of self-imposed health restrictions before COVID-19 was even

an issue. Unfortunately, some of those gestures of goodwill were reciprocated

with ridicule, racist remarks, racialized insults and unprovoked

violence.

From economy to culture, the contributions of Chinese Canadians are an

essential part of our province and our nation’s success and prosperity. The

Chinese Canadian Museum will preserve and showcase Chinese Canadians’

significant contributions and historical ill treatment for many generations to

come, study and learn from.

DAVE HAMILTON

I. Paton: Thankfully, not often do we lose a true champion of our community in

south Delta. But we recently honoured the passing of Dave Hamilton, the

longtime general manager of the Delta Optimist and truly an optimist

himself.

Dave was only 64. Gentlemen, take note. It was prostate cancer that led

to his demise.

Dave was a consummate community volunteer, as he involved himself with

so many community events and organizations, such as the Tsawwassen Business

Improvement Association, the Delta Chamber of Commerce, the Sun Festival

parade. And he loved his sports — curling, golf and slo-pitch, all in south

Delta.

Dave’s greatest passion and contribution to Delta was his love for

Rotary. For over 30 years, Dave volunteered with Tsawwassen Rotary Club’s

various job descriptions, including fundraising, public relations, community

projects and international project support. One of Dave’s longtime goals was

reached when he became a member of the Paul Harris Society and achieved the

position of Rotary District 5040 governor.

Dave was also a champion for the business commun­ity. He could

solve problems by putting the right people in the room together. It was amazing

how connected Dave was in our community and how he used his connections of the

city, the chamber, Rotary, the Optimist newspaper and the many

charities he supported to make Delta a better place.

Dave supported everything. He seemed to never miss attending our

fundraisers, our galas, our charity golf tournaments, Terry Fox runs and

various community events.

This past November the Delta Chamber of Commerce hosted its 70th annual

Excellence Awards night, culminating with the 2021 Citizen of the Year being

awarded post­humously to Dave Hamilton.

[1:50 p.m.]

The highlight of the evening featured a tribute video, photos and

memories of all the great work he did in our community. Dave was the eternal

optimist. Even after his cancer diagnosis, he continued to work and volunteer

for all the organizations that he loved, just adding cancer to his fight

list.

Dave was a gift to everyone in Delta. His personality and his

contributions will absolutely be missed.

PROTESTORS AT

SOUTHERN OKANAGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL

R. Russell: Last Friday protesters aligned with the so-called freedom convoy showed

up to Southern Oka­nagan Secondary School in Oliver just prior to the end

of the day. When the bells rang, students were exposed to a barrage of ugly

demands, insults and racial slurs. Protesters took it upon themselves to “honk,

scream and wave signs in our faces.”

I share the words that one student shared with me. “I was standing next

to one of my friends, and she was harassed by a protester who screamed racist

remarks just inches away from her face. These remarks included to go back to

where she came from, as well as asking her if she even had a right to be in

this country.” As another student succinctly wrote: “This behaviour is not

okay.”

I hope that in this House, we are in unambiguous consensus that our

schools should be safe places where everyone feels safe, comfortable and free

to be themselves. These current challenges are brought upon us in the purported

name of freedom. They are, in fact, individuals expressing selfish desires to

sustain their own wants, even if and when they come at the expense of our

collective freedoms and mental or physical health.

Provincially, I’m thankful to the Attorney General for bringing forward

the bill and the support of this House last autumn to enact bubble-zone

legislation to prohibit protests around schools and hospitals. Personally, I

think it’s time we check our own biases and behaviour and recalibrate how we

assess, react and respond when confronted with hate and racism.

I believe that the vast majority of protesters do not support hateful

and racist behaviour. So today I call upon those of you aligned with the

protests to actively, unambiguously and immediately condemn this kind of

behaviour wherever and whenever it occurs. There is a right time and a place to

protest. There is never a time or a place for hate and racism.

I close with a quote posted by a student, from Desmond Tutu, a bright

light that the world lost a few weeks ago. “If you are neutral in situations of

injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” We all need to actively

work to eliminate the space for hate. I’m very proud of the courage and

conviction these students carried.

HELEN FATHERS

T. Halford: I think in this House, we can all agree that communities are not built by bricks and mortar. They’re built by individuals who call it home, who wake up every day to make that community and that home a better place.

For the last ten days, White Rock has felt a little different. To be honest, White Rock will never be the same. We lost longtime White Rock councillor Helen Fathers, who passed away last Monday after a lengthy illness.

Helen, who was originally from Nottingham, England, was a White Rock resident for more

than 30 years, a passionate community advocate. To say she was a pillar of our

community would be an understatement. For many years, Helen served as

operations manager of the White Rock Farmers Market, which I know some of us

frequented quite often, and was also a director of the B.C. Association of

Farmers Markets. She was also a four-term city councillor, having been first

elected in 2008. Every previous election, I might add, she topped the

polls.

“The loss of Helen Fathers is a loss to the entire White Rock community. Helen had a vision and was committed to serving our community. She was also collaborative and a truly kind and caring person. White Rock city council has lost a wonderful asset. She will be incredibly missed.” Those are the words of White Rock mayor Darryl Walker.

I think many of us in this House can agree that the loss of Helen will not just be felt in White Rock. It will be felt throughout our province. I offer my condolences to her husband, Rob, her daughter, Ellie, and her mother, Margaret, who reside in White Rock, and to her father, Bernard, and brother, Rod, who live in England.

I ask that this House please, please keep their family in their thoughts and prayers as they move forward in the days and months ahead.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

DECISION ON FEES FOR

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

S. Bond: Last week the Premier and the Minister of Citizens’ Services were recognized with the Code of Silence Award — quite the award. It’s for outstanding achievement in government secrecy. The award confirms that the B.C. NDP are officially the most secretive government in Canada.

Well, here’s what the Premier had to say in 2015: “I think all British Columbians should

be concerned when their government hides things from them.” I guess that was

then and this is now.

Now his Minister of Citizens’ Services is facing scrutiny because of how

she managed to push through her bill that gutted freedom of information in this

province: technicalities, evasiveness and, most of all, secrecy. In fact, we

still don’t have the decision note that shows exactly how she decided on the

application fee well before Bill 22 was passed.

To the Premier, leadership starts at the top. Apparently, the Premier used to think that

it wasn’t a good idea to hide things from British Columbians. Will he today

direct the Minister of Citizens’ Services to table the full, unredacted

decision note from October 27 that set the application fee for FOI

requests?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, it’s surprising for a member of this House who was in cabinet for almost her entire time of the B.C. Liberal mandate to not understand how decisions are made. They’re made by cabinet. They’re not made by individual ministers. It’s a collective decision-making process, and I’m surprised that the member doesn’t know that. The Speaker ruled on the privilege question yesterday, and I believe the case is closed.

What I do want to talk about, though, while I’m on my feet is that this is coming from an opposition that had a triple-delete scandal that led to international headlines — not just by some protest organization but across the world — that the freedom-of-information process in the Premier’s office of the former government was Post-it Notes. What could be more transparent than Post-it Notes? What could be better than the minister, coming from a high-tech background, teaching other members how to triple-delete information?

What we have done since we came to government is proactively release information like budget estimates documents, like transition documents. Duty to document is now part and parcel of doing business in the government of British Columbia. Those are real, tangible evidences of change since the last government.

I appreciate people want to know my Scrabble scores. I appreciate that I continue to get

requests for a look at the front of my telephone. Anyone who wants to look at

my telephone is happy to come to my office and look any time they want

to.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: I hardly think it’s amusing. I think that British Columbians are

probably pretty embarrassed that this Premier has managed to top the country by

winning — let me repeat it again — the Code of Silence Award. That isn’t an

award that was given in the last ten or 12 years. That is on this Premier’s

watch. It’s time he actually looked in the mirror and said: “Maybe I should be

proactive about releasing a briefing note that brings into question this

minister’s behaviour.”

Let’s look at what the minister said last week. She said: “My commitment

to listen has been met.”

Well, what a sham the idea of the NDP listening turned out to be. She

didn’t listen to the broad coalition that opposed the gutting of the

legislation. She didn’t listen to Colin Gabelmann, the original drafter of the

legislation. Much worse, she didn’t even listen to the commissioner who is

responsible for the act.

That is this Premier’s minister. If he wants to talk about being

proactive, then I would suggest that he gets up today, does the right thing,

and tables an unredacted copy of the decision note of October 27. If there’s

nothing for the minister to be worried about, then the Premier should table the

document unredacted today.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Finance Minister reminds me that no one has ever accused me of being silent in any circumstance. I guess I should take it as a badge of honour that the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to declare me silent on important public policy matters.

I was quite vocal when the former government was literally deleting everything. When requests were made, nothing came back.

[2:00 p.m.]

The changes we made to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …were designed to streamline the process so regular citizens wouldn’t have to wait for the tens of thousands of requests from the official opposition and other parties to go on fishing expeditions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. J. Horgan: The government time taken up to find out what I have on my Scrabble score is not of national consequence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: What is of concern to British Columbians is that they can access information held by government on their business, and that is what we’ve done. We’ve streamlined that process. We’ve tried to delete the number of fishing expeditions that the official opposition makes so that citizens can access documents as they should be able to in a free and democratic society.

M. de Jong: Only the Premier could describe as a fishing expedition the release of a

document that will confirm whether or not one of his ministers was telling the

truth or not.

You know, the Premier seeks refuge in old jokes, but no one is laughing

anymore. His minister’s entire defence of a serious allegation hangs on a

document that her own emails refer to repeatedly: a decision note of October

Here’s what I find curious. When the opposition made requests for those

documents, we didn’t even get a redacted version. How is that possible? Is it

any wonder that the government now is referred to as the most secretive

government in all of Canada? We haven’t had a minister responsible for FOI this

discredited since, well, I guess, the previous NDP minister who

had….

There is a very reasonable and simple step forward. The document

referred to in the emails from the minister’s office referring to the decision

note of October 27 presumably will lay this question to rest conclusively once

and for all.

Will the Premier order the tabling of that document now?

Hon. J. Horgan: Clearly, the member from Abbotsford doesn’t adhere to or abide by the

rulings of this place, and that’s his business. That’s his business.

The issue here is: when was the decision made with respect to a fee for

accessing government documents? By not all citizens. If you’re looking for

information on yourself, that’s freely available to anyone who asks for

it.

We’re proactively releasing information that they used to hold as if

they were the sacred scrolls, simple things like transition documents, budget

estimate documents, that happen and transpire in this place. They wouldn’t do

that. We did.

Now, the member on that side who just asked the question is the most

experienced member on that side of the House, and he knows that decisions like

this are not made by ministers. They’re made by cabinet. The cabinet order to

bring in the fee was made after royal assent. That’s when it went forward.

There is no debate on how this happened — only in the small minds of the people

on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: I won’t try to reconstruct the remarkable rapidity and speed with which, in the two minutes that passed after the passage and royal assent granted to the bill, the cabinet came together, decided, discussed and decided to make the decision. That speaks to an efficiency of decision-making that we have not seen from this government on any previous occasion. It’s entirely implausible, and the evidence strongly suggests that it is not the case.

The Premier refers to the ruling that we received in this House. He might want to remind himself of what that ruling was in speaking to the documented evidence. The email centred around a decision note and an application fee. However, a copy of the decision note wasn’t provided.

[2:05 p.m.]

It wasn’t provided because when the opposition made a request for the document, the government refused to give it. The defence hangs on a procedural move by the government and the minister responsible for access to information not to provide access to that information. There is a strong suspicion that the minister didn’t tell the truth. There is a document that is in the government’s possession that can confirm that one way or another.

Why won’t the Premier release that document?

Hon. J. Horgan: I look forward to the next night at the Abbotsford comedy club when the

member is up doing his riffs there.

When I think of freedom of information and the member from Abbotsford,

I’m reminded of an ICBC report that was released with pages literally ripped

out of it. That’s the severing from the former Minister of Finance’s office.

Their severing wasn’t done through the professional public service; it was done

by ripping the document in half, taking out the elements that would accuse them

of fudging the books with respect to ICBC.

Now, I believe that is a substantive issue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that British Columbians would want to know more about.

When cabinet made a decision…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that is a collective decision. It’s there for all to see. The bill received royal assent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order now.

Hon. J. Horgan: The order was passed. Moving forward, I hope that the member over on the

other side can get over this and move on as well.

Mr. Speaker: Next time the Chair asks members to come to order, I’m going to try

Speaker Bercow. Remember? “Order!” If you don’t listen, then we’ll do something

else.

TELUS HEALTH SERVICES

A. Olsen: If we were to be taking the Premier’s defence on this, then members of this side of the House should never be members on that side of the House, and members on that side of the House should never be on this side of the House, because what I’m about to point out is what one of the Premier’s members said while they were on this side of the House.

An

article published in the Vancouver Sun on August 3, 2018, highlighted Telus’

$100 million purchase of Medisys. “The acquisition involves about 30 boutique

clinics, which operate under Medisys, Copeman Healthcare and Horizon

Occupational Health Solution brands. Some of them charge hefty annual

membership fees for affluent families and executives.”

Reflecting on Copeman’s business model in his past role as Health critic, the current Minister of Health is quoted in a 2007 Tyee

article written by Andrew MacLeod saying: “People aren’t paying for those services, and everybody knows it. You’re paying for the right to see a…doctor.”

The Vancouver Sun states: “Copeman Healthcare has four swanky clinics in B.C. and Alberta, catering to well-heeled patients, corporate health programs and business executives.” Telus purchased Medisys because “it’s a profitable entity.” They have a lot at stake as they’ve got billions of dollars developing health records software.

What I want to know is why this NDP Minister of Health is standing on the sideline while a

company like Telus, with obvious profit motives, is allowed to entrench a

two-tiered primary health business model in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Dix: What the member has suggested is the issue that he’s been raising has

been around for a long time, which is the provision of non-medically necessary

supplementary services, and there is a debate about those services.

In 2018, after I became Minister of Health…. It was 2008, I think. That

was the proper reference — not 2018 but in 2008. After I became Minister of

Health, the cabinet decided, after due consideration, to bring into force an

act of the Legislature that had been passed under the previous government and

never been brought into force over the previous 15 years. That action that was

taken by me as Minister of Health and by the cabinet ensures that the

provisions against extra billing have been strengthened in B.C.

With respect to issues raised last week by the member, the Medical

Services Commission did take action and worked to ensure that a provider was

brought into compliance. If the member believes that Telus Health is not in

compliance of the Medicare Protection Act, he should bring that information

forward.

[2:10 p.m.]

For my part, we’ve brought into force a new law. We’ve brought in force

repeated actions that support public health care and limit private intervention

in public health care, repeatedly done so. In this case, we’re asking the

Medical Services Commission to review all these issues to make sure that

everybody is in compliance.

I think that’s the right approach. That’s the approach that protects

public health care, and that’s what I’ll continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: At the heart of this is the reality…. A primary feature of the tech

industry, of course, is the disruption of business models. It can happen very

quickly, and jurisdictions that do not have the proper regulatory framework in

place are vulnerable.

Josh Blair, head of Telus Health, said at the time of that Vancouver

Sun article: “When you look south of the border, you see American tech

giants moving into this space…. So together with Telus and Medisys, our

intention is to create a Canadian health tech champion that can be an alternate

to the American tech giants.”

In the Vancouver Sun article, Dr. Brian Day, co-owner of the

Cambie Surgery Centre, an advocate for private clinics, pointed to the entrance

of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and J.P. Morgan Chase into the American health

sector and said: “I expect to see a positive and much-needed disruptive

innovation.”

The Minister of Health should not be brushing this off. He spoke to the

clear and present danger to our universal, equitable primary health care system

in the past.

My question is this. Do corporations like Telus have a place in the

NDP’s vision for primary health care delivery in our province?

Hon. A. Dix: Telus has the same obligation as everyone else, which is to support and to follow the law, which is the Medicare Protection Act. The idea that the member is singling out what is a B.C.-based company as the sole target of this criticism, I think, is incorrect. What we need to protect public health care is investment in public health care, enforcing the laws around public health care, bringing back workers who were wrongly privatized back into the public system.

It seems to me what we also need is to improve what public health care does for people.

That’s why, in B.C., we have 12 MRI machines that are operating 24-7 in the

public system, why we’ve increased the number of MRIs, for example — an area

where private health was strong — by 47 percent to improve services for people,

why we’ve added 54 primary care networks and 26 urgent and primary care

centres, why we’ve added surgeries to reduce wait times and why, even during a

pandemic, there are fewer people waiting for surgeries than before.

We don’t just need to defend public health care; we need to improve it. And that’s exactly what this government intends to do.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON

REBUILDING OF LYTTON

T. Stone: Again, last week the Canadian Association of Journalists recognized the NDP for being the most secretive government in Canada. The award is called the Code of Silence, and it’s for outstanding achievement in government secrecy.

Sadly, it’s not just the Minister of Citizens’ Services who appears to be deeply committed to a culture of secrecy in government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is getting in on the action, wanting a member of this Legislature to sign a non-disclosure agreement to find out what the government is actually doing, planning to do, to rebuild the village of Lytton.

My question to the Premier is this. Can the Premier tell this Legislature why his government is requiring NDAs from local MLAs who are seeking answers on behalf of their constituents?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the member. I’m not aware of the context of which he’s bringing this forward. I’m happy to speak to anyone offline about that to get to the heart of the matter.

If it’s theatrics you’re looking for, then again, it’s odd to have this member talking

about freedom of information and access to information when he was the

architect of the triple-delete scandal. They didn’t give out awards from

journalism at that time. He was good copy. He was good copy in the last

government.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: I think it’s time for the Premier to look in the mirror. What he’ll see is the head of a government that has just been acknowledged in this country, by the Canadian Association of Journalists, as the most secretive government in Canada. That’s this Premier’s record: the most secretive government in Canada.

The B.C. NDP are notorious for requiring non-disclo­sure agreements to hide

information and keep people from speaking out on everything from labour policy

to front-line health care workers. This government even forced their own

attendees at their own convention to sign an NDA.

Now the NDP want to pull the member for Fraser-Nicola into their secret society of non-action with respect to Lytton. All the member and the people of Lytton want to know is: what is the plan to rebuild their community, if there actually is one?

Again, the question to the Premier is very simple, very straightforward. Will the Premier stop the obstruction, remove this ridiculous requirement for a non-disclosure agreement and actually share with the Fraser-Nicola MLA, this Legislature and, most importantly, the people of Lytton the information they’re looking for with respect to the rebuild of their community?

Hon. J. Horgan: As the member, I’m sure, will know as the newly minted Opposition House Leader, there is a bill before this House to assist in the rebuild of the village of Lytton. That is being debated right now.

I travelled with the member for Fraser-Nicola…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the answer, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: …personally, as did the Government House Leader and the minister responsible for emergency preparedness. We have been reaching out repeatedly.

Again, people who have been in government…. I’m surprised they’re not aware of this. In some instances, there are issues that may well be adversarial to the outcomes that we’re looking for, and that’s why one would use a non-disclosure agreement.

I can say categorically to the member for Fraser-Nicola that she has my number. She’s always had my number. Anything she needs…. She just has to call.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND

MINISTER’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

CHILDREN WITH

SUPPORT NEEDS

T. Halford: Speaking of non-disclosure agreements, every member of the minister’s

advisory council regarding clawbacks for children with autism has been forced

to sign an NDA. Parents should not be forced to sign an NDA when it comes to

trying to access information about their children. Families have been put

through incredible stress…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please.

T. Halford: …and anxiety by this minister.

On Monday, what do we hear from the member for Langley East? We hear: “No decisions have been made.” Now, that member must have gotten that information from somewhere. I think, in this House, we can all agree that it is actually extremely cruel to give these families false hope.

Will the Minister of Children and Families stand up today and tell us who is right and who is wrong? Is it the member for Langley East, or is it this Minister of Children and Families?

Hon. M. Dean: I’d like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to everybody who’s on the minister’s advisory council. It’s a mixture of advocates and service providers and parents and grandparents, people who have a deep passion for the diverse community of families who are taking care of children and youth with support needs. It’s really important that we’re able to speak to them first about policy direction and programming and areas of decision-making.

As the member said, there are many decisions that have not been made yet. We have two years. We have two years before provincial implementation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: We are engaging with families, with advocates, with groups who represent families, with service providers. We’re consulting with them so that we can build this framework that is desperately needed in our province because so many children have been getting left behind under the patchwork of programs that was the design of the other side of this House.

BUDGET LOCKUP CAPACITY

P. Milobar: I think it’s becoming very clear in this question period why the Premier rightfully won the Code of Silence Award from the journalists for the most secretive government in all of Canada.

[2:20 p.m.]

There are lots of ways that a government can keep information under control. We have a budget that is going to be released next Tuesday. Yet the budget lockup this year has been restricted to 10 percent capacity of the room that has been booked by the government. Even under previous COVID gathering rules, you could have had 50 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please.

P. Milobar: This has resulted in the denial of many, many groups, most of which, at some point over the last year, have taken issue with some form of government policy. They won’t be allowed in the budget lockup. They won’t be allowed to give their impressions of the budget to the media that are in that lockup.

The restrictions have been released, starting at midnight tonight.

Will the minister instruct the budgetary office to open up the capacity back to the usual invite list and make sure people have proper access to budget documents that directly impact their organizations?

Hon. S. Robinson: I am looking forward to next Tuesday. It is budget day here in the

chamber. On that day, everybody is going to hear about where this government is

headed and where we’re investing to make sure that British Columbians can get

the services….

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order, please.

Hon. S. Robinson: British Columbians can hear about how this government has their backs

and how this government is going to continue to invest in the services that

people can count on. That’s what they’re going to hear on Tuesday. They’re

going to hear it right here. I invite everyone to tune in.

We just learned yesterday about the changes in the restrictions. We have

a plan for 100 people for sure who are going to be there. This is an

opportunity for everybody. Every British Columbian gets to hear about the

budget next Tuesday. It’s at 1:30.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: A hundred people in a ballroom that holds 1,000. A change to capacity that the minister says they just found out about yesterday, yet the Premier, earlier this week, said Minister Dix talked about this date in early January and was planning for post…. The 16th.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: No. It’s right here, actually.

The groups fundamentally need to have access to the budget lockup. In fact, they’ve

cancelled the media budget lockup in Vancouver this year as well. They’ve asked

businesses over the last two years to pivot on 24 hours’ notice to change

repeatedly, change their operations, yet this minister is saying that with even

a week’s notice, she can’t add a few people to a 1,000-person ballroom. Let

alone the fact that her own minister was working on the reopening a month

ago.

Again, why will this minister not instruct the budgetary office to open up the admissions for the budget lockup in time for next Tuesday?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to recognize that, all along, the public health office has been monitoring, and it depended on how things played out. The public health officer has been monitoring, and we never knew, frankly, until just this week what was actually going to be happening in the next couple of days.

Having said that, we also heard complaints last year when we had all online and the

challenges that came with doing an online budget lockup. So we have found a

way.

I know that the members opposite know that it does take some time to

plan a budget. And it….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, clearly they are not interested in hearing my

answer.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Robinson: They just keep yelling at me, so I’ll take my seat. Perhaps they have another question for me.

FLOOD RESPONSE AND

TEMPORARY HOUSING IN PRINCETON

L. Doerkson: You have to give it to the NDP. They’re consistent when it comes to

failing communities impacted by emergencies. We’ve seen Lytton basically

forgotten and the local MLA asked to sign an NDA to get information. Now

hundreds of Princeton flood victims are facing being homeless due to bungling

by the NDP government and a refusal to provide funds for temporary

housing.

[2:25 p.m.]

The MLA for Boundary-Similkameen blames outdated legislation for his

failure. Maybe he didn’t sign an NDA, so he doesn’t know that the province

declared a state of emergency to cut through red tape like this. What’s really

concerning is that the member for Boundary-Similkameen is supposed to be

leading the recovery efforts for Lytton, and he can’t get help for his own

community.

Will the minister do the right thing, do his job and fund the temporary

housing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to answer the question for the member.

I want to assure him that not only is the member, the MLA for the area,

doing an amazing job in standing up for his constituents and working to deal

with the issues in Grand Forks, but that member is also wrong in his assertion

that the people of Princeton are facing eviction.

I can tell you that the

article that he has been quoting from is full of

mistakes. I can tell you that the supports that are in place are there until at

least mid-March, when they will transition to more permanent housing, and that

the Red Cross is working very hard to ensure that those supports are

there.

I can also tell the member that in terms of the grant that the city of

Princeton is wanting to have, there is significant engagement between my

ministry and the community on that particular issue. What I would say to the

member is: stay tuned.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table a petition. This petition is from Finnigan Mckay. He’s a first-year student at UBC at Nobel House. Following the death of two 18-year-old students hit by a vehicle and killed in September at UBC, they’re asking for government and this House to work to address safety issues on the roads and sidewalks in and around UBC, including in relation to drag racing, speeding and enforcing traffic laws.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 4, Skilled Trades British Columbia Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. It is now the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training’s chance to introduce the bill. If members have discussions they want to have, I’d ask them to take them outside of the chambers. I’d like us to get underway.

Again, if I might ask, if members have conversations, if they might take them outside, that would be appreciated.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — SKILLED TRADES BC ACT

Hon. A. Kang: I move that Bill 4, the second reading of the bill, will be moved right now.

Last week we introduced the Labour Market Outlook, which forecasts job openings over the

next ten years. I am pleased to say that B.C. continues to lead Canada’s

economic recovery with 100,000 jobs added in 2021. Our province’s economy is

strong, and forecasts show that it will continue to grow.

[2:30 p.m.]

In the next decade, we are expecting a wide range of job openings in various occupations, and we know that almost 80 percent of these openings will require some form of post-secondary education. In the trades alone, we expect 85,000 job openings, with more workers retiring than entering the occupations. There are so many opportunities for meaningful work in British Columbia.

Tradespeople are critical to our economic growth, particularly as we recover from

COVID-19. They are building our homes, our bridges, our hospitals and our

schools. They fix our cars and keep our lights on and our water flowing. We

want our tradespeople to count on good, family-supporting, steady work by

ensuring they have the certified skills they need to be first in line for these

job openings.

Completing an apprenticeship and earning certification is one of the best ways we can help them on that path. That is why we are taking strong steps to modernize our trades-training system and set a new version for the future. We have a rare opportunity to create a lasting legacy for our trades-training system that puts workers first as we build a stronger, more sustainable and inclusive economy and respond to the challenges of COVID-19 recovery.

This vision begins with introducing new legislation and a re-focused Crown agency. The Skilled Trades BC Act will lay the foundation to support and recognize the critical role skilled tradespeople play in our economy and in our community by establishing skilled trade certification for ten initial trades that requires people to register as an apprentice or be a certified journeyperson.

Before 2003, British Columbia had 11 designated compulsory trades, but in the years since, B.C. has used a voluntary credentialing system for all trades. We are the only province without mandatory skilled trade certification requirements. That means there are thousands of uncertified workers practising a trade with no formal recognition of their skills and knowledge levels.

These workers are often paid less and have lower rates of employment stability and mobility, making it harder to support their families. This is particularly true for those underrepresented or equity-seeking groups.

With so many experienced trades workers expected to retire, we need to make sure there are enough qualified journeypeople to train the future trades workforce and keep our economy strong. Skilled trade certification will do that by making sure workers are credentialed at the highest possible skill level to earn the best wages possible and be more resilient in an evolving economy, by breaking down barriers that keep underrepresented and equity-seeking groups from accessing good-paying jobs, shifting the conversation so that trades are recognized as the critical, prestigious and valuable careers that they are in our society, in order to attract more youth.

We are finally bringing our province back in line with the rest of Canada. The skills and careers of thousands of British Columbian trade workers will now be recognized and valued as much as teachers, nurses and other certified professionals.

The Skilled Trades BC Act will replace the outdated Industry Training Authority Act and continue the Crown agency responsible for apprenticeship training, which will be renamed from the Industry Training Authority to SkilledTradesBC. This renewed vision of SkilledTradesBC reflects the expanded responsibilities to oversee skilled trades certification, with a new focus on promoting and supporting apprentices and trainees throughout their training journey.

The act will also introduce journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios to ensure apprentices have access to supervision from a qualified journeyperson. This act will establish a fair and transparent compliance model, to ensure requirements are applied consistently and employers know they are working on a level playing field.

We know these changes represent a significant system shift, but they were considered

thoughtfully and have been informed by an evidence-based approach. We conducted

in-depth research and analysis, looked to other jurisdictions for best

practices, and sought guidance from indus­try, led by a stakeholder

advisory working group.

[2:35 p.m.]

These changes also reflect what we heard during broad public engagement held this summer, where we engaged extensively on how to best support workers, employers and Indigenous communities to transition to skilled-trades certification and to inform legislation. As part of this process, we consulted with external stakeholders, including industry, labour and post-secondary trainers. We also engaged with Indigenous leaders and Indigenous leadership partners and service providers.

Our efforts to engage Indigenous partners aligned with government’s commitment under the

UN declaration, in­cluding incorporating ideas directly into this

legislation. For example, it will be required that SkilledTradesBC consult with

representatives of Indigenous peoples on the development and implementation of

the strategic plan, and a new objects statement has been added to affirm

SkilledTradesBC’s strategic mandate to promote participation of Indigenous

people in the industry training and apprenticeship system, including to

encourage Indigenous people to register in and complete apprenticeship

programs.

These legislative changes will ensure B.C. has one of the best trades-training systems in the country. This modernized system will build on our accomplishments over the last four years.

It will do that by investing in additional apprenticeship advisers to provide hands-on guidance to apprentices and employer sponsors; by investing $5 million so that more trades workers can start an apprenticeship or upgrade their skills at a recognized post-secondary institution; by ensuring apprentices and trade students have the most up-to-date facilities in which to train; by providing opportunities for over 7,500 high school students to discover, explore, train and work in the trades; by increasing the successful participation of women, Indigenous peoples and underrepresented groups in the trades; and by developing programs to address issues that may discourage members of these groups from pursuing a career in the skilled trades, such as bullying and harassment.

Since March 2019, the ITA reports a 26 percent increase of women participating in an underrepresented trade, which are trades where women represent less than 25 percent of registered apprentices.

Since 2018, our government has invested nearly $85 million to help build new or upgraded

existing trades cen­tres and over $70 million in industry-standard

training equipment, with more investments to come. Now is the time to build on

the success and meet the challenges ahead, to ensure our trades workforce has

the knowledge and the skills to embrace innovation and diversity while staying

resilient in the face of rapid change so that they can reap the benefits of a

changing economy.

By introducing this legislation and giving trades workers the recognition they deserve, we are saying yes to good-paying, stable jobs that support families and communities. We are saying yes to filling gaps and building a workforce of the future. We are saying yes to building value for the people who are building British Columbia.

I ask that all members lend their support to this, the new Skilled Trades BC

Act.

I would like now to move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Are there other speakers?

I think we have other speakers before we’ll get there.

C. Oakes: It truly is a privilege to rise today and speak to Bill 4, the Skilled Trades BC Act.

I want to make it very clear to all members of this House, and I can certainly speak on

behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, that we share a common objective to ensure

we are supporting and creating more opportunities for qualified apprentices and

red seals in the province of British Columbia. We also mutually share in our

desire to ensure that all workers in the province of British Columbia are in

safe environments.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think it is also clear that we all share a commitment to providing increased opportunities for our Indigenous communities to get involved in skilled trades and to ensure that we are always looking at how we can increase diversity in the province of British Columbia.

We all recognize that British Columbia is facing labour shortages and that trades are lining up to be one of those industries that are most impacted by this. This labour shortage will have significant impact on every aspect of our daily lives. I fear that the demographic that is most going to be impacted by this will be millennials and young people.

I have deep concerns that the types of legislation that the NDP are bringing forward are

backward-looking and do not take into consideration the very real

challen­ges that young people, families and seniors in every part of this

province are facing. This can range from finding someone to build your home, to

someone to go out and fix your furnace.

I very much worry about the real affordability challen­ges that British Columbians

are faced with today. I think the fact that we continue to hear from this

government…. This repeated notion that we’ve heard earlier in this House today

in question period when we raised concerns that we have heard from people

across British Columbia — the very real pressures that British Columbians are

feeling around affordability.

We hear comments like the minister…. With all due respect, in her opening comments, she talks about how great our economy is doing and how strong we are doing and how we are leading the country and how everything is great, and we’ve got all of these wonderful things in British Columbia.

I have deep respect and admiration for British Columbians. When I talk to them…. When we

go out and we listen, we hear that there are real concerns about affordability

and that for every piece of legislation, every policy, everything we bring

forward into this House, we have to apply that lens. Will it make things easier

for people? For young people, will it really help give them the chance, that

sense of hope, that need that they know that we have their backs here in this

Legislature?

Mr. Speaker, with that, I worry. I worry that this bill and this piece of legislation as it goes through the committee stage is another piece of legislation and policy that is going to have fundamental, long-lasting impacts affecting general affordability on young people, on families.

I have serious concerns — as I’m certain my colleagues from the opposition parties will

raise — on the very concerning trend that this government has about moving away

from transparency by introducing legislation in this House and leaving any of

the controversial impactful pieces to regulation without this Legislature’s

ability to have oversight or the ability to question and to hold the government

to account.

Quite frankly, that needs to be called out, and that needs to stop. This trend that this government has of disrespecting our roles here in this Legislature, this direction from the executive, the cabinet, the Premier, that we will move the significant decision points to regulation where we can make the real decisions, is very alarming.

The idea that we will introduce a theme and a piece of legislation — “We’ll introduce the

theme, but the real nuts and bolts of the true impacts of this legislation

we’ll leave off for regulation” — is a concern that every member in this House

should have. “We’ll hide behind executive privilege. We can make decisions

based on politics,” rather than providing members of this House the ability for

each of us to do the job that we were elected to do.

A government’s shift of power to the executive through decision-making powers and

regulation. The notion that I have heard repeatedly is: “The intent is here.” I

want to thank the minister for the ministry staff providing a briefing. I

appreciate that. But what I repeatedly heard — “Well, the intent is this. The

intent is that. It’s not in legislation because it will find its way in

regulation” — is a challenge.

[2:45 p.m.]

In legislation that is vague on details, leaving powers to this executive, the idea that

the government keeps putting out there — “Trust us; trust us. The intent is

good. We’ve got these ideas that we think are wonderful and that we’ll bring

forward” — is not providing the type of certainty or clarity that is required

at a time when British Columbia and our province need it most.

The real question is: what is the intent of Bill 4, Skilled Trades BC Act? A significant portion of this legislation — again, this is not about the hidden regulations, which we truly don’t know of; there is just an intent, because government has yet to be transparent on what those regulations are — is truly about the repealing and replacement of a Crown corporation. With some minor changes in the Crown corporation, it’s basically a name change from the ITA to the new SkilledTradesBC.

If there were a more worthy award from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for taxpayer waste, it probably would be a name change of a corporation. Let’s just think about it. Let’s go out and change the name of a Crown corporation. As we understand, as we go through committee stage, we’ll walk through and understand what changes will be made by this piece of legislation. Think of the marketing material, folks. Think of every aspect of a name change to a Crown corporation.

There’s really, as I understand, only very limited change to what this is, besides a name change, and what that real impact will be. Think about the cost. I know we will explore the costs more as we go through committee stage, but basically, there are a few minor adjustments in the moving of bylaws from their government manual to legislation, to promote Indigenous people to register and participate in skilled trades training, and to modernize, as required by all Crowns, to reflect the Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act, Indigenous, UNDRIP.

The real question is why the significant cost of changing the name of a Crown agency. I’ve asked, in the technical briefing, for the cost to taxpayers on this renaming of the Crown. I very much look forward to the information from the minister that will be provided, I’m sure. My commitment is that when that information comes out on what that significant cost will be to taxpayers, we’ll make sure that we make folks aware of what that will be.

The second question that comes as we talk about the name change to a Crown corporation is: why has this not come before the legislative committee, of this House, on Crown corporations? It’s another theme we’re seeing here: lack of transparency. “Let’s move things to the executive council to make the decisions. Let’s make sure that we don’t utilize the committee structures,” which we actually all have a responsibility and an accountability to participate in here, in this House. We have a committee on Crown Corporations. Why has this legislation not been brought forward to this committee?

Why are we not utilizing this Legislative Assembly the way that it should be? Why are we not following things that have been laid out for us to be accountable, as elected legislators, to look at? Why does this government feel that it can circumvent legislative processes in some of these instances, like we’ve heard in the conversation about the freedom-of-information debate and the disregard for the legislative committees in that respect and for the officers?

Let’s talk about the Health Committee, and let’s talk about all of these committees. Why are we not using this House, this Legislative Assembly, to do the work that we were elected to do? Why are we not using our committee structures to make sure, when bills and legislation come forward in this House…? We have an elected responsibility — every single member of this House — and this is another piece of legislation that has circumvented that.

I’m asking the question: why do we repeatedly do this? Why is the government continuing to

think they can circumvent things that are laid out in the Legislative

Assem­bly, in our roles and responsibilities? The government does not get

to make the rules up as they go along. There is a process that needs to be

followed. So my question to this House is: what is the government hiding in

Bill 4, the Skilled Trades BC Act?

[2:50 p.m.]

I want to now take a moment to consider the funding model for post-secondary and vocational seat training. We repeatedly hear that the funding model is coming, and I hope that we will see that in the upcoming budget. I sincerely hope so, because the experience on the skills training, college training institutions under this government is that we certainly have not seen the significant investment in training seats that are required to meet the labour shortages — the 85,000 people that will be retiring and we need to replace.

Where are those seats? Where are those training seats that will be required to meet the needs of this labour shortage that the minister has talked about? As opposed to this, we get recycled announcements or card shuffling on funds.

I hope it was not the government’s intent to find a way to not make the necessary needed investments into post-secondary and skills training that is required and that this bill that basically changes the name of a Crown corp sets forward an intent that will be the real nuts and bolts in regulation. I hope it isn’t a cover for the real needs and investments that need to be made in training, to really help people achieve all of the things that the minister laid out earlier.

Look, I’m sure we’ll hear from government members some message that dates back a significant amount of time, but I would remind all members of this House that in the year 2022, following several years of COVID, our lives have changed. Our communities have changed. With that, I think we all have a responsibility to reflect on what our citizens, our constituents, need from us as legislators. They’re counting on us. They’re counting on us to speak up for them.

I repeatedly hear from millennials and young people about how infuriating and

disrespectful that we often tend to look backwards. We talk about, “20 years

ago this hap­pened,” or: “Ten years ago….” We do it on both sides, to be

fair. I think it’s a theme that we all too often bat around as politicians. But

I’ve heard from young people that they want us to do things

differently.

Here’s our chance. Here’s our chance to get it right for them. This is their lives, and they want us to know clearly that they feel that life is not affordable. They’re concerned about what their futures will be, and they’re very concerned about the types of policies that are being brought forward in this House that will have unintended, long-lasting consequences on their lives.

Millennials and young people want their government to understand that they’re deeply frustrated, and they’re concerned about the length of time it is taking for them to access the necessary training so that they can be certified and so that they can work on these major projects. We all agree that we want to increase apprenticeships and red seals. But what I’m hearing is not that we need a Crown agency name change.

What I’m hearing from young people is that they know. They respect. They are excited to get into the skilled-trades-training world, but the seats aren’t available. The training seats are not available for them to access. Millennials and young people want this government to know that the limited spaces and wait-lists can easily push a three- or four-year program to nearly a decade. I want members to think about that.

We want to solve the labour shortage. We want to pro­vide opportunities for people

to get into these critically important skills- and trades-training fields, yet

under the current system, under what the NDP is doing with the training, a

three- or four-year program can push into a decade to get the certification

that they need. This will not meet the province’s labour timelines.

I think it’s critical for every member of this House to understand, to go out and to talk to a young person and ask if making it more difficult to get into the skills and trades training, the reality that it could take you ten years to complete a four-year apprenticeship program, is something that is going to result in an increase in people accessing skilled trades training and going in to become an apprentice. Think about that. Ten years.

[2:55 p.m.]

I want members to think about the costs of going in and waiting and taking ten years to get apprenticed. I’ve heard from young people that textbooks are currently out of date, and the materials are not relevant. As a result of that, we’re seeing a sharp drop-off in student participation. That is what young people want this minister to work on. That is what I’ve heard that people across this province want this government to consider. There is a major shortage of trades-training spaces in colleges and vocational institutions that is leading to these chronic wait-lists that we’ve seen.

Let us look at the framework that this legislation is putting forward, this new timeline, where it can take a young person a decade for certification to meet the new compliance codes that this government is setting out. What will be the real impact? Young people in their prime earning years. What do you think their choice will be when faced with this new framework? Has the government even talked with millennials and young people?

I hear time and time again that this demographic is looking for flexibility. They’re

looking for options. They’re looking for mobility. They’re looking at how they

can….

It’s not like in days past where you consider a career, and you find yourself in that career for the extent of your life. Young people are looking for flexibility. They’re looking for job flexibility. They’re looking for ways that they can get flexibility in training. They’re looking at innovation. They’re looking at how we can utilize technology better so that they can access the type of training, so that it increases their ability for flexibility. Let us also understand the ever-evolving industry and the needs to upgrade, train, and the curriculum that is needed to meet the needs of our trades and our industries.

Why didn’t we take the money that it is costing to change the name of a Crown corporation? Basically, let’s be clear. For most of it, that’s the extent of what this legislation will do. Take that money and invest in our colleges and our training facilities. Let’s take that money on marketing and all that stuff that is…. It’s going to be a massive cost and a huge bureaucratic red tape. It’s going to take a lot of effort to change a Crown corporation with a new name.

Why aren’t we taking that money and investing it in people and investing it in training? Why is the government not focused first on making sure that our training institutions have state-of-the-art equipment so that students can train for now and into the future? Why is the government not coming out with a bold plan on how we can offer the necessary training to actually tackle the labour shortage? Why aren’t we looking at innovation? Why aren’t we utilizing technology? Why aren’t we looking at best practices around the globe?

Why don’t we make British Columbia the best place to come for skills and trades training, because we have the training ability right here in a new innovative training fashion with a new enhanced curriculum that meets the needs of today and far into the future? Why isn’t that what we’re debating here in this House today?

How are we investing in curriculum development? What is the work that’s being done? Are we

spending all of this time on trying to move into a new Crown corporation

instead of taking the very valuable, necessary time that it takes to look at

curricular development? How are we going to find those extraordinary red seals

to support our apprentices? And how are we going to make sure that we’ve got

those red seal instructors? How do we make sure…? Again, whether it’s

supporting our apprentices with red seals and what that looks like…. Why aren’t

we investing that energy and time in that?

Where is the government’s plan on skills training? Why didn’t that come first? Why didn’t we lay the foundation for how we are going to train for the future and invest in people? Why didn’t that piece come first?

Part of the rationale of the name change was to ensure that we’re encouraging and supporting Indigenous populations as they enter into the skills trade. Did we need to change the name of a Crown corporation in order to do that? If you want to help Indigenous people, rural people, to access the trades, then you need to rethink the actual training programs and how we deliver them themselves, because far too many trades…. There is only one school offering apprenticeship training, and it’s often located in the Lower Mainland. How is this helping our rural and Indigenous populations?

[3:00 p.m.]

If it takes you ten years to complete your training…. I want you to consider this, Members. The travel each year to the Lower Mainland to access trades. How is this going to help people? How do I go back to my Indigenous population and say: “Hey, you know what? Here’s a great opportunity, but you’re going to have to travel down to the Lower Mainland every single year in order to get the necessary training.”

Why aren’t we investing more of that money so that we’re training locally? Why don’t we have more skilled-trades training opportunities in each of our communities? Why aren’t we making that investment? Why aren’t we talking about that in the House? I know firsthand the extraordinary impacts. When we invest in our colleges and our training institutions and when we have training opportunities right in our communities, it makes a significant difference in people’s lives, and it impacts our communities.

Here’s an example. When you look at the ironworker apprenticeship, the only courses that are offered are at UBC. Drywallers, commercial painters and glazers: there’s only one school, and that school is located in Surrey. There is only one school in B.C. that offers the technical training required for power line technicians and refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics, both of which are on the compulsory trade list as listed by this government.

Why are we not investing our time and our energy into finding new ways to deliver skilled-trades training right across this province? It’s imperative to implement more online delivery models, and we’ve got to figure that out.

How will this new framework support families and single parents to participate in skilled trades, and how does this framework support women in the trades? I heard the minister talk about that, and I think that’s something we all agree on. But think about that single mother. Think about that single father. Think about that family that may be looking at a ten-year stretch where travel to access training, into the Lower Mainland, is required every single year.

Think of how hard it is and how complicated it is to figure out our daily routines — figuring out how to get kids to school and to soccer and all of those other pieces. Now take out of that that, as a parent, you may have to travel to the Lower Mainland every single year to access training. What is that going to impact on families? Ten years.

Address the very real training challenges that are im­pacting our labour shortage.

Start looking at ways to hire more instructors.

At the end of the day, there are serious impacts in the hidden intent of this piece of legislation, and that is concerning. We want this government to stop hiding behind regulation and start addressing the very real challenges of British Columbia, such as the labour shortage and the impact that this is having on all British Columbians.

Stop the rhetoric. Put forward initiatives today to ensure our workforce can meet the

demand for skilled tradespeople now and for years to come. Provide real

certainty for young people so that they know, when they make the decision to

enter into skilled trades, that they’re not at the whim of a government that

can make changes behind closed doors without scrutiny and have significant

impacts on their lives.

Understand that we already have some of the strictest regulation and oversight bodies. We heard earlier about the work of WorkSafeBC. We heard the minister talk about that earlier today.

Finally, understand the real challenges millennials and young people are facing. We’re

calling on this government to stop making it more difficult, to stop

introducing pol­icies and regulations that are going to have

far-reaching, long-lasting impacts on all British Columbians, especially our

young people. Sitting on wait-lists for years. Not being able to access the

necessary programs in order of when you need to meet the certification

requirements. The lack of training innovation. The fact that people have to

travel each year, which is a significant barrier.

I challenge the government to solve that problem. I look forward to listening to the contributions of the members of this Legislature on this bill and on behalf of their constituents.

In closing, I have this to add. I’ve heard members this week recognize and acknowledge Chamber Week. Chambers, boards of trade are dear to my heart. I worked with them for over 14 years prior to this job.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m calling on chambers of commerce to consider the impact of this bill on your community. Contact your local college or your skills-training institution and ask if there’s significant investment in training seats. I know the Surrey Board of Trade, in the past, has completed a government red-tape-reduction report which indicates the cost to business for compliance, and I look forward to reading what the Surrey Board of Trade has to say about this bill.

I would ask you to look at developing policies and regulations going forward this year at your conventions. I ask the Union of B.C. Municipalities to also look at this bill and consider the implications of what this will be on building your communities. This bill, the intent behind this bill, can have significant impacts on affordability now and into our future.

To the CFIB, when you look at considering the awards that you put forward, recognizing governments have the potential to misuse tax dollars, consider reading this bill and consider if a name change from an ITA to a build skills B.C. — with not a significant amount of change in the Crown corporation but a name change — is good use of taxpayer dollars. I’ll leave that up to you. I’m sure your members have something to say about it. I look forward to hearing from you.

Finally, in closing, let us make life more affordable for British Columbians and start

setting a vision of hope for our young people, understanding we already have

strong foundations in this province. Let us once again provide hope for a

strong vision for British Columbia where all people know that the next

generation has all the opportunities that we have had.

A. Mercier: It’s an honour to rise in this House, not just as the member for Langley

but as the Parliamentary Secretary for Skills Training, to speak to this very

im­portant bill.

I just want to start by saying, as a young person and as a millennial….

I’d like to thank the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training for

bringing forward the Skilled Trades BC Act. What it’s about is creating red

seals, not red tape.

Now, throughout the course of my speech this afternoon, I’ll go through

some of the inaccuracies in that profoundly confusing and inaccurate speech we

just heard from the member for Cariboo North.

This is an historical and auspicious day, because this bill corrects an

historical mistake that was made in trades training in British Columbia that we

are still struggling with the ramifications of today. I’m going to speak about

the bill. I’m going to speak about these very important changes and the

engagement and consultation that we did along the way.

First, I think it’s important to understand how we got here. How we got

here was a series of decisions made by the B.C. Liberal Party when Kevin Falcon

sat in cabinet as the Minister for Deregulation in 2003-2004. So 2003 is a key

date in the history of B.C.’s trades-training system. So many problems and

issues that we have and that we’re facing now flow from that. I’m going to

unpack that a bit as we go here. But it’s important to understand the

context.

Pre-2003 we had 11 trades that were designated compulsory in the

province of British Columbia. What that means is that for those particular

trades, it was mandatory that a tradesperson be either certified with a

certificate of qualification, red seal, or be registered as an apprentice in

those trades. All ten provinces and territories at the time had a system of

compulsory trades. Nine still do, and all the territories still do, and that’s

an important part.

At the time, pre-2003, there was an organization called ITAC, the

Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. The Industry Training and

Apprenticeship Commission, which was set up in 1997, was there to ensure

industry-led regulation of trades training. It had a board that was

interest-based, which led to some decision-making issues, arguably. It had a

board that was interest-based, and it regulated trades training in British

Columbia, as opposed to the government ministry regulating it

itself.

[3:10 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberals came in….

I should say ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission,

was staffed by over 40 apprentice advisers. I can’t say enough about the value

of apprentice advisers. They are the key point of contact for young

peo­ple, now for millennials, for sponsors, for apprentices to navigate

what can be a very difficult system to get through on your own.

I mean, there’s a lot to learn in an apprenticeship. And 80 percent of

the time you’re at work, working sometimes gruelling hours. So I think it’s

important to recognize that folks need an extra hand and they need a hand up,

and apprentice advisers provide that.

In 2003, with zero consultation with industry, the B.C. Liberals gutted

ITAC. They shut it down. They laid off 40 apprentice advisers. They replaced

them with three people in a call centre in Richmond for 15,000 apprentices in

British Columbia. Now, if we want to talk about a name change — and I’ll talk

about this later — when they introduced the ITA, the Industry Training

Authority, they took the word “apprenticeship” out. That was their name change,

because they devalued apprenticeship in this province.

They went to a self-help model of apprenticeship, where apprentices were

required to understand all the complexities of registering online. They had to

maintain their ap­prenticeship files up to date, with no assistance, and

make all adjustments for employer changes. Keep in mind that at the time, 50

percent of apprentices were in the construction industry, which is a

multi-employer industry, where people often span different projects and they

span different employers. There was no one there to assist them.

I invite you to imagine being a young apprentice at that time with no

family in the trades. You’re looking to break into it. You have no one to help

or assist you to navigate it. Contractors are overwhelmed by the demands of the

job, understandably. You look to the government agency that’s there to help

you, and it’s been completely gutted into a shell. You’ve got to get into a

phone queue with 15,000 other apprentices so one of three people can take your

call. I mean, that is just absurd.

It was part of a suite of changes represented by an ideological drive to

deregulate apprenticeship. That change happened in tandem with the removal of

compulsory status for the 11 compulsory trades in British Columbia. That had a

real and demonstrable impact on annual completions in this province.

During the transition away from compulsory trades, annual completions in

British Columbia dropped by one-third. They went from approximately 3,000

people per year to 2,000 people per year. Provincial certifications issued in

British Columbia fell 31 percent. That’s 1,073 people less between 2002-2003

and 2003-2004.

Red seal endorsements dropped 27 percent, because not all trades are red

seal trades. It dropped 27 percent, by 683 people, between those same years.

This drop was maintained over time, and we still haven’t recovered.

I just want to ask all the members of this House to contemplate how many

more journeypeople we could have in this province had we maintained that

system, had we maintained compulsory trades — like every other province in this

country did — and had we supported young people and apprentices with apprentice

advisers and other services instead of leaving them to their own

whims.

I want to read this into the historical record. In 2008, the Auditor

General, John Doyle, released a report entitled A Major Renovation: Trades

Training in British Columbia , where he was critical of the government

at the time for failing to work with the industry stakeholders — it is a

diverse and complicated industry — in delivering massive change to the

apprenticeship system. He said: “The ITA did not sufficiently consult with, or

provide enough guidance and support to, its partners and stakeholders. This has

led to poor relationships that have hampered the training system.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, it’s important for context here to understand that at the time, the

ITA, the Industry Training Authority, was a brand-new Crown corporation, with

ten people staffed at it and no apprentice advisers, that was functionally

under ministry control. It was the government — you know, the government’s arm

of the trades training system. So this is really a condemnation of the B.C.

Liberal government for their insufficient consultation and the relationships

that they burned in industry during that time.

Mr. Doyle goes on, in his overall conclusion. He’s talking about the

shift in 2003-2004 away from compulsory trades:

“While the provincial government and the ITA have established a new model

for trades training, the ITA has not provided sufficient guidance and direction

to its partners and stakeholders to put this model into practice. When assuming

responsibility for leading the trades training system, the ITA did not

sufficiently consult or collaborate with stakeholders in developing its plans

and strategies. Given the significance of the changes being introduced and the

number of stakeholders involved, this was a large omission.”

I think that’s a really important point, because what we’re talking

about here is making transparent consultative decisions and not making

decisions behind closed doors that no one is involved in. We have experienced

that in British Columbia. We experienced that in 2003. The consequences have

been absolutely disastrous.

That change was an ideologically driven change that was done with no

consultation, and the market did not buy in. It turns out that employers want

full-scope tradespeople. They need journeypeople. This change devalued the

trades as a career. It was based on the idea that anyone can be a tradesperson

and that there is no value added from a full scope of training. We know that is

just not true.

I just want to reiterate here: no province followed us in doing this. No

province blew up their trades training system like this. Not even Mike Harris,

the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, who came into office on a

commonsense, free enterprise, free market revolution.

Not even he followed Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberals in gutting

compulsory trades. They still have a system of compulsory trades. Even with

trades training changes made by the Labour Minister Monte McNaughton in Ontario

just recently, they’ve strengthened that system. They haven’t gutted it. I

think that’s very important.

I just want to mention, because we heard the member from Cariboo North

talk about chambers. I’d like to talk about the chamber of commerce, because I

do think that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce is the legitimate voice of

independent businesses in British Columbia.

I want to read a policy statement out from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

This policy statement was made in 2018 and it was reaffirmed in 2021. If the

members are curious, they can go on the B.C. chamber’s website, because it’s in

their general policy book from 2021. This is about improving apprenticeship

completion rates. They say: “The impacts of B.C.’s 2003 model,” so that’s the

elimination of compulsory trades and the shutting down of ITAC, “have now come

into focus just as the growth in demand for skilled trades and the need to

replace an aging workforce approach peak levels.”

They then talk about the unintended consequences of those changes, and

they reveal what they call troubling findings: “Overall apprenticeship

completion rates have declined compared to a decade ago and relative to other

jurisdictions. Lower average rates of completion for trades that are compulsory

in other jurisdictions suggest that the absence of compulsory trades

certification in British Columbia decreases the motivation for apprentices to

complete.”

They then go on. Of course, provinces keep their data in different ways,

so they apply a cross-methodology between the other provinces so they can make

an appropriate comparison. They then go on to apply that methodology looking at

completion rates between 2004 and 2014, a step following the deregulation of

trades training and the establishment of the Industry Training

Authority.

When they look at this, they say:

“The average completion rate in that period in B.C. falls to 42 percent,

compared to a small increase nationally to 48 percent.” So other provinces are

going up; we went down.

[3:20 p.m.]

“Even the Industry Training Authority’s own reports estimate completion

rates at 36 percent. The decline in completion rates provides some evidence

that the B.C. model has not achieved one of its key objectives: to increase

training completion rates within skilled trades.”

They then go on to say:

“This overall decline in completion rates is accompanied by marked

differences in completion rates across individual programs in B.C. Lower

average rates of completion rates for trades that are compulsory in other

jurisdictions suggest that the absence of compulsory trade certification in

B.C. decreases the motivation for apprentices to complete.

“The link between compulsory certification and completions has been

established in previous studies. A study conducted by Patrick Coe concludes

that ‘apprenticeship programs for which certification is mandatory had

completion rates that are about 10 percentage points higher than those without

mandatory certification.’”

This is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They go on to recommend that the

provincial government should realign with the certification practices of the

rest of Canada, “accompanied by using a clear framework for the review of

trades with an effective compliance and enforcement policy, based on

evidence-based analysis and input from industry.” This is a national best

practice that we are an outlier and not following, and we’re suffering as a

consequence of it.

Now, in 2014 — I do think the history here is important, and 2014 is

relatively recent history — a report was commissioned into the functioning of

the Industry Training Authority. The provincial context for that was that the

provincial government of the day was around an election on trying to land

liquid natural gas investment, which they were not successful in doing. They

realized if they wanted to land investment of that calibre and that size, that

labour supply would become an inevitable issue, so they were forced to look at

it.

What the minister at the time — who is the member for Prince

George–Valemount, who served as Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training —

did was to turn to Jessica McDonald to do a review of the Industry Training

Authority and trades training and write a report with recommendations on how to

improve it.

I should say, for context here, that Jessica McDonald was the deputy

minister to Gordon Campbell from 2003 to 2009, at which point she was the head

of the provincial civil service. So a very accomplished civil servant. She also

served under Christy Clark, as the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro.

This is someone with a very sophisticated view of government that has no

reason to do anything other than make recommendations that make sense to put

things back on the right footing. The report, I would recommend to anybody,

because it is very, very good reading for anyone that is trying to understand

trades training in B.C. But she makes some good points and some interesting

findings, and I’m going to read them out, because it’s in part of how we got

here today in a very real way and a part of the process.

I’m conscious of the time, Mr. Speaker. I should just let you and the

Clerks know that I am the designated speaker for this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Mercier: In her report The Industry Training Authority and Trades Training in

B.C.: Recalibrating for High Performance , the independent review lead,

Jessica McDonald, states: “Over the recent past, several new directions have

been introduced, such as deregulation of trades and modular training, that have

caused strain because they were not fully inclusive during development, were

seen to benefit single interests, and they impacted the whole

system.”

Strain. So you’re seeing similar language to what Auditor General John

Doyle pointed out when he said it hampered. These were interferences that made

trades training more difficult. The approach they took was a mistake. But I

digress.

Jessica McDonald goes on in her report, under the heading “Enhanced

Industry Leadership,” to talk about recognizing variability between sectors and

trades. She says the following:

[3:25 p.m.]

“In focusing on evidence-based planning targets, the system must recognize

variability between sectors and between trades. Over the recent past, the

system has strained under new ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy directions. These

include examples such as modularized training and certification, the

elimination of compulsory trades and apprentice ratios, a focus on

competency-based assessments and others. While each of these concepts has merit

within the system, they are not right for every trade and circumstance. A shift

towards evidence-based planning must include a clear realization that the

solutions that will allow the fastest progress towards an alignment of supply

and demand require differentiation between sectors and trades.”

If we want to hit that equilibrium in terms of supply for labour power,

we need to realize that the trades are different and that trades are highly

variable in between sectors and in between trades. “Industry must have a role

in advising on the appropriate measures that will best target each trade, and

this advice should be based on evidence-based analysis geared to meeting demand

targets.”

That’s, to my view…. It’s very unfortunate that a government has to be

told that industry should be consulted when making such a significant change,

but clearly a report had to be done that said that.

McDonald goes on to issue recommendation No. 15:

“Sector advisory councils should be asked to advise governments on the

relevance and need for specific policy directions for each sector, with

resulting recommendations backed up by clear evidence relating to projected

impact on achieving demand and supply alignment targets. These policy issues

may include the need for reintroduction of compulsory certification, apprentice

quotas and ratios, expanded opportunities for challenging for trades

credentials, etc.”

Before 2003, we had a system that recognized the differentiation between

trades and recognized the value of the trades. This, I think, is very

telling.

The member for Prince George–Valemount received this report. What it

says is that compulsory trades not only have merit, but a committee of industry

representatives should be put together to discuss and advise on the need to

introduce apprentice quotas and ratios — apprentice to journeyperson ratios.

I’ll touch on that as I get into the bill.

The report goes on, on page 39, to say: “Over recent years” — this is

somewhat of a restatement, but the wording here is interesting — “many new

directions have been introduced, such as deregulation of trades, elimination of

apprentice ratios and modular training and certification, that have caused

strain because they were not fully inclusive during development, were seen to

benefit single interests, and they impacted the whole system.”

She unpacks that a bit: “Because different concepts benefit different

interests, these approaches have become associated with ideological positioning

and the system is resistant to discussion. While each of these concepts has

merit within the system, they are not right for every trade and

circumstance.”

She goes on to advise on her recommendation that there ought to be a

sector advisory committee put together of representatives from different

industry to advise on the best approach to restore compulsory

trades.

This is telling because this is not a partisan report. The B.C. Chamber

of Commerce is not a partisan group. These are independent voices looking

clear-eyed at the problems facing us today, how to solve them, and they

inextricably come to the exact same conclusion, which is the conclusion we’ve

come to as government, which has led us here to this bill today that’s been

introduced by the minister.

We are facing a skills crisis in British Columbia. That was

characterized by the member for Cariboo North as a labour shortage, and that’s

not quite accurate. It’s more complex than that. It has different

ramifications, and I’m going to talk about that in a moment.

We’re facing a skills crisis. We’ve heard from the minister that there

will be 85,000 job openings in skilled trades by 2031, and approximately 70

percent of those job openings are going to be due to retirements.

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We are about to lose a generation of journeypeople right as we need to

be producing an incredible amount of apprentices. In a very real way, the clock

is ticking in British Columbia, which is that if we want to have enough skilled

workers, we need to get them in, and we need to apprentice them now. Action

needs to be taken now. We can’t afford to not take action. Part of that is

because, historically, we’ve been so set back by the drop in completions that

occurred, when the trades were totally devalued in 2003.

I want to touch on my point that this is not the same as a labour

shortage. What I mean by that is this is a skills shortage. It’s more acute

than a labour shortage because we don’t just need people; we need people with a

very high degree of skills and value-added skills. I think making that

distinction between labour and skill shortage really goes to understanding the

value of the trades, which is not just anybody can come in and be a

refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanic. It’s a very difficult job. It

requires a lot of training and a lot of experience and a full

apprenticeship.

You can’t wake up one day and decide you’re going to be an electrician.

It just doesn’t work like that. You need so much training and experience. The

system and the entire idea of apprenticeship is built around that to make sure

that folks have that experience and have that training.

The best way to think about — and I’ll confess I’m indebted to the

Deputy Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training, Shannon Baskerville,

for this metaphor — our skills-training system, our apprenticeship system, is

to think about a leaky pipe. Water comes in, and then it leaks out, at

different points. We have kind of distinct problems right now, which are the

flow of apprentices and then completion drop-offs and apprentices leaving after

year 1, after year 2, after year 3.

We need to get more apprentices in, and we also need to deal with issues

in completion along the way, where folks are dropping off. Those are distinct

issues. This bill addresses both of them, but in no way is it a silver bullet

in the sense that there’s not more work to do and there’s not more work that is

actively being done right now. And I will get into that. There absolutely is.

This is part of a coherent strategy to ensure that we have the people that we

need, when we need them, and that we have people to fill the jobs.

Like I said, it’s a generational crisis. I can tell you from my personal

experience as a millennial. I don’t have to go out and speak to millennials.

I’m a millennial. I get it. This is stuff that keeps me up at night.

In many ways, this problem is symptomatic of a very strong economy.

There is high demand for skilled labour. In some ways, this is the kind of

problem that I think would be the envy of a lot of governments in that what it

means is we have more demand than we have supply. We have more investment than

we have workers to fill the jobs.

We have two industrial projects in northern British Columbia — right? —

Site C and LNG Canada, both of which require significantly high pools of

skilled labour. We’re building a whole slew of brand-new hospitals and building

additions and upgrades to existing hospitals.

Then you look at all the other civil projects that we have going on.

We’re building a brand-new Pattullo Bridge. We’re building the Broadway

corridor. We’re extending the SkyTrain all the way to my riding of Langley,

which I am ecstatic about. We’ve got road construction going on left, right and

centre. We have a massive rebuild of the Coquihalla that we have to do, and

we’re currently doing pre-works for the Massey Tunnel. We’ve got a very high

demand for skilled labour, and it’s also an opportunity to train the next

generation of apprentices.

An important point here is that often what might happen in British

Columbia, or in Canada more generally, is that you’ll have a downturn in one

province, and then you’ll have apprentices and journeypeople move from that

province to a province where there’s higher demand, where there is more

investment, more projects going on, that type of thing. Or say there are

shutdowns in the oilfield in Alberta, and you’ll have people go there to do

maintenance.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s a very highly mobile workforce that moves around. That’s the entire

idea. That’s why we call it a journeyperson. That’s the entire idea of a red

seal. It’s that they’re interprovincially harmonized so that the credential is

recognized everywhere.

We can’t expect to be bailed out of the skills crisis by downturns in

other parts of the country. The Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec have got record

levels of investment in civil works going on right now. If you look at maps of

population flows, what you will see is that

whereas previously, folks from

Quebec and Ontario and the Maritimes may have come out here for work, what

typically seems to be happening now is that Ontarians and Quebecers are staying

in their provinces because there’s more than enough work at home, and

Maritimers are going to Ontario and Quebec.

I’ve lived in the Maritimes. I’ve lived in two Maritime provinces.

Maritimers like to stay close to home — I completely get that — and relatively

close to the same time zone.

The point is that we need to build our workforce here in British

Columbia. We need to be getting women and Indigenous peoples the support they

need to be success­ful as apprentices. We need parents to encourage young

people to pursue the opportunities that are in front of them right now, because

there are significant and mas­sive opportunities in the trades if you’re

young. I tell my friends this all the time: you can make a really good living

in the trades. You can work outside. It takes a high degree of skill and

intellect.

There is a lot of financial reward right now, but we’re coming from

behind with a previous government that had so completely devalued the trades.

We need to raise the prestige of the trades again and make it an attractive

option because we need parents to encourage their kids. The average age of an

apprentice is 28 years old. That’s not going to bail us out.

That is why we’re moving forward with skilled-trades certification. It

is a new approach. It’s skills focused. It’s industry-driven. This bill, the

Skilled Trades BC Act, will create a requirement for people performing work in

certain trades, not all trades — we heard about the need for differentiation

between trades and sectors from Jessica McDonald, and we take that to heart —

to either possess a red seal or be registered as an apprentice.

The value of skilled-trades certification is clear. In addition to the

points made by the B.C. chamber and Jessica McDonald, we have done significant

work, and the ministry has done significant work, on a business case to look at

the value of creating this requirement for mandatory certification for certain

trades. What they found is that…. PricewaterhouseCoopers was contracted to do

labour market data. This is all public. This is all transparent. We’ve been

very transparent with this process the entire way through, and I’ll touch on

this. But the business case was released and is on the ministry’s

website.

Registration in apprenticeships, in trades, where skilled-trade

certification is a requirement, are projected to in­crease by 7 percent.

That is due to the rise in the prestige of the trades. That’s real. It is

important that we get more people into apprenticeships, which we desperately

need right now.

Interestingly, we did our engagement over the summer on implementation.

I’ll talk about that in a little bit, but I’ll flag one point here: 75 percent

of parents that we spoke to, that answered our survey, said they are more

likely to encourage their kids to pursue trades as a career if a red seal is a

requirement of that trade. Now, I just want to pause and reflect on that. That

is incredible, and that is exactly what we need in order to get more young

people to actively be pursuing the trades and picking up the opportunities that

are in front of them today.

I want to talk a bit about the process that brought us here, that

brought us to this bill. I’ve talked a bit about the history, and now I’d like

to talk about the process. When I’m doing that, I want to take a moment and

thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

[3:40 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant because everyone

who’s been in government will know that by the time you get to a piece of

legislation on the floor, or the time you get to an announcement, significant

work has to happen to get to that point.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, when she became the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills Training in 2017, picked up the ball and ran with

it. I think often of the comment she makes that has really stuck with me — that

we need to get away from this perception: “I have two kids. One of them is

smart, and one of them is in the trades.”

I mean, I think that is kind of a good summation of a problem that we

have, which is that we casually devalue the trades, and we look at them as less

than, and we shouldn’t, because they take all kinds of skills. There are all

kinds of incredible people working in them. You know, you can have an

incredible life.

I also want to thank the team in the civil service, because there was a

lot of work that went into this, and I’m going to detail that. I’ll read out

their names for the record, because I think they all deserve some accolades

here.

That’s Shannon Baskerville, the deputy minister for Advanced Education

and Skills Training, and Bindi Sawchuk, the assistant deputy minister for

Advanced Ed and Skills Training, both of whom have done a phenomenal job

leading the ministry; Emily Cronin, the executive director for labour market

and trades training policy; Kim Buchanan, the director of trades training

policy; Catherine Poole, the executive director of workforce development and

skills training; James Papadopoulos, the director of governance for skilled

trades B.C. and implementation of skilled trade certification; Kelly

Fitzsimonds, the legislative analyst who has done a phenomenal job in

legislative drafting; Matt Dell, the director of legislation; the policy

analysts Avery Bonner, Ken Corbett, Kendra Greek, Janet Baker and Adam Skulsky;

as well as the team at the Industry Training Authority: Rod Bianchini, Shelley

Allan, Shelley Gray and Andrew George.

They’ve all done a tremendous job, and we’re going to benefit as a

province as a consequence.

I just want to say a special shout-out to Michael Snoddon, the director

of strategic initiatives and corporate operations in the deputy minister’s

office. This has been a personal project of his that he has pushed along and

has done a phenomenal amount of work on. And Jeff Hannah, the minister’s

ministerial adviser, who works with me on this file, really helped carry the

ball during the consultations and engagement that we did over the

summer.

We’re picking up where the McDonald report left off. We got industry

together, and we created a stakeholder advisory working group that engaged in

an 18-month long process to identify the best manner of proceeding with skilled

trade certification and selecting the trades.

This is typical of the approach this government has taken to engagement.

This was begun under the member from Mount Pleasant when she was minister, and

it was finished under the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who is the minister

now, who is bringing the bill forward and championing this going

forward.

I want to read out the names of the stakeholder working group, because

they’re a tremendous group of people. When you hear the names, you’ll hear that

they come from all corners of industry. This was not a case of government going

in and picking their friends and putting them on a committee. It was

well-rounded, and it made sure there were very diverse viewpoints.

I know a lot of these folks. The idea of getting them all together in

one room and agreeing to ten trades…. I would have told you it maybe couldn’t

have been done. It’s a testament to all of them and the hard work they did and

just the common sense behind this policy that they got there.

The members are Chris Atchison from the B.C. Construction Association;

Helen Boyce from ACCESS Trades, which does phenomenal work with Indigenous

apprentices; Laird Cronk from the B.C. Federation of Labour; Abigail Fulton

from the B.C. Construction Foundation; Kaanesh Ghosh from LNG Canada; Shelley

Gray, the CEO of the Industry Training Authority; Lisa Langevin from the B.C.

Tradeswomen Society; Robin Lucas from Allteck power line contractors; Kathy

Kinloch, the president of BCIT; Irene Kerr from B.C. Infrastructure Benefits;

Jud Martell from the B.C. Building Trades; Ken McCormack from the Construction

Labour Relations Association; Larry Richardson from the Christian Labour

Association of Canada, or CLAC; Ken Tourand from the Nicola Valley Institute of

Technology; Rob Tremblay from the Automotive Retailers Association; and

Rieghardt van Enter from the Progressive Contractors Association, which is a

group of the Christian Labour Association’s signatory contractors.

[3:45 p.m.]

This is exactly the process that the McDonald report recommended, which

was to go out to a broad-based group of stakeholders representing varying

interests — and, frankly, representing very different philosophical positions —

and bring them together. The result of that was an industry-driven approach

that maximizes the benefits of skilled trades certification while mitigating

the risks, by starting with ten highly certified trades.

The work they did — they took a variety of labour market work and other

work — informed the business case, to select the ten initial trades. What they

did was that they picked trades that were in high demand and where there’s

going to be a need for higher levels of apprenticeship, but also trades that

are very highly certified. Part of the rationale for that is to ensure that

this isn’t disruptive, that this doesn’t create any type of labour market

disruption and that we do this in the best possible way.

The list of the ten trades are: electrician; industrial electrician;

power line technician; gas fitter A and B — I’ll just note that gas fitter A

and B isn’t a red seal trade at the moment, but it’s going through the process

of harmonization; refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanic; automotive

service technician; automotive body repair; heavy-duty-equipment mechanic;

steamfitter/pipefitter; and sheet metal worker.

To give you a sense, there are estimated — by the ministry, based on the

labour market data and not the national occupational code — to be 12

uncertified industrial electricians, for instance. That trade is 99.7 percent

certified. Electricians are 98 percent certified. You can see that the amount

of uncertified workers presents a very manageable opportunity in terms of

making sure that those folks have recognition for the skills they need and the

supports they need to become certified. So this ought to boost registration

within those trades.

There’s another point about those trades that I think is critically

important for this House during its deliberations. That’s that these trades are

highly certified to begin with and, with some exceptions, don’t have a high

impact on the housing market. “Carpenter” is not on this list. That’s not a

mistake. We went through a very planned and deliberate process to pick trades

that will be minimally disruptive upon introduction. The business case pretty

frankly states there’s going to be no impact on housing affordability. I mean,

construction electricians are 98 percent certified.

Now, that being said, what would impact housing costs is not enough

skilled workers. So this is going to drive more apprentices in. This is really

aimed at helping affordability in the long term. To assert otherwise, I think,

belies a pretty significant lack of understanding of trades training policy,

and I would invite anybody that actually thinks that to do broad consultation

and engagement with industry, not just with preferred groups.

What’s also important here is that we’re taking a phased approach. We

announced this back this past June — the minister, myself and the Premier. We

announced what the trades were, out of transparency and a need for market

certainty. We’ve released the business case. We’re going to do it in a phased

approach. There are seven construction trades here and three automotive trades.

The seven construction trades will come into compliance in June 2022, and the

three automotive trades will come in by June 2024.

We’ve heard the member for Cariboo North assert that the devil is in the

details when you talk about what they’re going to do with regulations. “What

are they hiding?”

We’ve come out pretty plainly and said: “Okay, well, this is a

regulatory authority. Here’s what you can expect of this.” These trades will be

designated by regulation. “Here’s the timeline you can expect, for market

certainty.” That’s very significant. I’ll touch, in a bit, on the importance of

regulatory authority to preserve flexibility in some of this, and the need for

flexibility on the jobsite and in industry.

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s the process that brought us to these ten trades.

I want to talk a bit about the engagement we did after the stakeholder

working group and after that announcement. After our initial announcement of

the stakeholder working group selected initial trades, we launched a

comprehensive engagement on skilled trades certification implementation with

industry and Indigenous communities.

We went out, and we actively, through the stakeholder working group,

said: “Send us contractors. Send us apprentices. Send us journeypeople. Get as

many folks as you can to sign up for round tables who are out on the ground

working in automotive shops, working in collision and body repair shops, who

are working on sites, who are running crews. We want to hear from people where

the rubber hits the road.”

And that’s what happened. We had a lot of folks. We did it via Zoom. We

did our round tables via Zoom. We had a lot of folks Zoom in from the

workplace. We had people who were running their businesses Zooming in. So we

had a pretty good response, I think. We took a dual distinctions–based approach

in accordance with our commitment under UNDRIP, the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples.

We did engagement with industry, looking to employers and apprentice

sponsors, looking to labour unions, looking to journeypeople, apprentices,

uncertified workers. We had a round table specifically for women in the trades

and a round table specifically for new Canadians, where we had translation

services available, to really make sure that we dug into the kinds of issues

that people were concerned about and to make sure that we were as conservative

as possible in making sure that we conceived of every possible angle. I’ll talk

about each one of those engagements in turn.

We released two reports on the engagement, two what-we-heard reports on

skilled trades certification engagement: one for industry, one for Indigenous

engagement. They were pretty revealing.

I will start with the first, which was the process-for-industry

engagement. We had over 30 individual stakeholder meetings that I took, where I

was able to have some pretty good conversations.

I met with the Mechanical Contractors Association; the B.C. Construction

Association; SMACNA, which is the sheet metal and air conditioning association;

the New Car Dealers; the Automotive Retailers Association; the B.C. home

builders; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Electrical

Contractors Association; the Independent Contractors and Businesses

Association; the Christian Labour Association of Canada; the B.C. Building

Trades; the B.C. Federation of Labour; the Sheet Metal Workers; the HVAC

industry; and several others.

We did very comprehensive, one-on-one discussions so we could hear

people’s concern and input in a more drilled-down way. We had 12 round tables

in addition to that, with 113 participants. We had a survey with 860 responses.

I just want to say that I think that’s a phenomenal turnout for a survey that

was very technical about the trades-training system.

What I’ll say is that the engagement on trades training that we did was

characterized by very frank, very open and very honest conversations. We heard

very clearly about the need for flexible learning options. The pandemic has

shown us, in many ways, that there’s a whole new world possible —

trades-training providers are leading the way, and the Industry Training

Authority is leading the way — and that need is there, albeit somewhat limited

by, sometimes, the need for equipment.

We heard about the need for trades-training seats to address wait-lists.

You might end up in a situation sometimes where you might have a college up

north — say, in Vanderhoof — that has extra trades-training seats that aren’t

being filled while you have significant wait-lists at BCIT. There’s a need to

look at making sure that there’s balance so that we don’t have folks leaving

apprenticeship because they’re stuck at level 2 or they’re stuck at level 3 and

they can make more money in a warehouse or they get a little down about

it.

We need to make sure that we’re addressing wait-lists, and we’re

absolutely alive to that. I would say that there’s a lot of capacity within the

system, and there are specific things we’re doing, and I’ll detail

that.

[3:55 p.m.]

We heard about how important it is to get young people into the trades.

Like I said, a key takeaway: 75 percent of parents that answered our survey

told us they’re more likely to encourage their kids to get into the trades if

red seal is a requirement. We heard about the need for specific supports to the

challenge process — to challenge your trade ticket — and the importance of

diversity and culturally relevant training.

We also heard about the work we’ve done to remove barriers for women and

the need to continue to remove barriers for women. Women make up 10 percent of

ap­prentices and 4 percent of journeypeople. There is a significant

drop-off happening there. When you look at the leaky pipe, I think all of that

is exacerbated if you’re a women in the trades, for various systemic

reasons.

I’ll tell you this. The number one issue that I heard about from

tradeswomen — I talk to tradeswomen all the time, and this was reiterated

durin