1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 18
[ Page 11095 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a welcome to some visitors in the precincts today. A group of students from Kitsap Alternate School in Silverdale, Washington, are with us today with their teacher Ms. K. Tassaas. I hope that my colleagues will join me in making these people feel very welcome to British Columbia.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am pleased to introduce Bill 50. This important amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act responds to two pressing issues in our province: consumers in need of greater protection in the rental housing market, and the need for strengthened communications between landlords and tenants. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. The amendment addresses requests by tenants, landlords and community groups to make the act a more effective instrument for dealing with residential tenancy matters. Today's bill provides residential tenancy branch staff with an expanded information role in all matters of the act.
Regarding rent protection, the amendments give the residential tenancy branch the authority to deal with rent increases through a two-step dispute resolution system. Step one takes place after the tenant contacts the branch, if they believe that the rent increase is unjustified. The residential tenancy officer will help resolve disputes by explaining the rights and obligations to both parties. If it is necessary, step two will involve arbitration. A justifiable increase will be based on such criteria as increases in operating costs, major capital expenditures and net income. The formula for calculating the actual increase will be fine-tuned over the summer, and landlord and tenant representatives will participate in that process.
Additional amendments will give tenants options to deal with emergency repairs and other repairs, make wilful damage to units an offence under the act, order that tenants may change locks and retain the only key in cases where a tenant's security or right to quiet enjoyment is being compromised by the landlord, and strengthen provisions against harassment and discrimination due to source of income. It will also increase the maximum fine for violations to $5,000 from $2,000. These changes level the playing field.
Bill 50 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.
HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 47. Bill 47 makes minor amendments to three consumer protection statutes: the Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, the Motor Dealer Act and the Travel Agents Act. It also repeals the Trading Stamp Act. Although the changes may appear small, the amendments to the Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, are necessary in order to proclaim amendments made last year to the Credit Reporting Act. The amendments to the Motor Dealer Act will provide concrete benefits to individual consumers; the changes prohibit the replacement and disconnection of an odometer with the intent to mislead a prospective purchaser. The changes to the Travel Agents Act provide that the costs arising from meetings of the travel agents' board will now be borne by the travel assurance fund. The Trading Stamp Act is being repealed because it is outdated.
Bill 47 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.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Social Services estimates; and in the House, I call second reading of Bill 44.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull: This bill makes amendments to a number of acts: the Company Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Public Sector Employers Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. I will briefly describe the amendments to each of these acts.
The amendment to the Company Act is housekeeping in nature and simply corrects an incorrect cross-reference. The amendment to the Cooperative Association Act is also housekeeping in nature. It provides that the documents required to be filed with the superintendent of credit unions and cooperatives may be imaged -- that is, they can be stored in electronic form to reduce the costs that are associated with the storage of paper documents.
There are several investment-related changes to the Financial Administration Act. Some of the amendments are housekeeping in nature. The definition of "pension fund," for example, is amended to provide clear authority for the offering of investment management services, such as university pension funds, to employees of government bodies. As well, a further administrative amendment will authorize the provincial treasury to deduct certain out-of-pocket expenses directly from the investment portfolio for which the costs are incurred. A significant amendment to the Financial Administration Act will allow for the implementation of the so-called prudent person standard of investment. This is now the established investment standard across North America and will do away with the old and somewhat out-of-date list of specific investments that are eligible.
[10:15]
Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act are largely designed to fulfil the recommendations of the Seaton report. These amendments relate to the documentation of investment, delegation and directions, give greater
[ Page 11096 ]
distinction between trust funds and government funds and generally permit the government to separate its policy creation and implementation process from its day-to-day investment decisions. To this end, the position of a chief investment officer is created, and a facility to establish and transfer certain investment powers to the chief investment officer is established.
The bill also makes several amendments to various taxation statutes. The bill amends the lien provisions and the third-party demand provisions of the Hotel Room Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act in the same manner. The existing lien provisions in the two acts permit the Crown to register a lien against assets owned by a company that is related to or associated with the company owing the taxes. However, the province has found that in practice we're frequently unable to use this provision because it does not have access to information related to the company's share structure. So the amendment to both acts will allow the province to deem that two businesses are closely related where the assets used by the company owing the taxes are owned by a second company, unless the second company can provide information to the contrary. The existing 90-day term for third-party demands on funds owed to a taxpayer indebted to the Crown under both the Hotel Room Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act has proven insufficient when the province is attempting to seize funds that are subject to outstanding legal or insurance claims. In these cases we've had to continually renew the 90-day term to ensure payment of the debt once the dispute is resolved. Under these amendments, the demand will remain in place for up to three years or until the demand is satisfied.
The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to prohibit fuel retailers from purchasing lower-taxed fuel, relabelling it and then reselling it as higher-taxed fuel, unless the retailer has been appointed a collector under the act. Appointing such retailers as collectors ensures that they are subject to all of the tax collection and enforcement provisions of the act.
The Social Service Tax Act is further amended to establish that non-residents who own or lease seasonal dwellings or recreational sites in British Columbia are required to pay tax on any tangible personal property they bring into the province if the property will remain in the province. This amendment addresses a longstanding concern of British Columbia retailers that non-residents are able to avoid paying taxes by purchasing tangible personal property, such as building materials or appliances, outside the province -- usually in Alberta -- and then transporting them into British Columbia for permanent use. It places B.C. retailers at a real disadvantage because they have to collect taxes on all sales, including sales to non-residents.
The bill also proposes certain housekeeping amendments to the Social Service Tax Act to provide proper statutory authority for regulations dealing with the application of the tax to motor vehicle dealers on cars held for resale. Amendments are also proposed to remove uncertainty in the application of the tax and to provide proper statutory authority for the definitions.
The Taxation (Rural Area) Act is also amended by this bill to provide for the registration of liens in the land title office to recover delinquent property taxes in individual cases of potential bankruptcy. This amendment is required as a result of the 1992 amendments to the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that changed the province's claim position from preferred to unsecured creditor status unless the lien is specifically registered.
Another change as a result of federal legislative changes is made in order to comply with the terms of the Canada-British Columbia tax collection agreement. Amendments to the Income Tax Act are proposed in this bill to parallel recent amendments to the federal Income Tax Act. These amendments are designed to ensure that the tax treatment applicable to a refund of capital gains to mutual fund trusts is consistent under the federal Income Tax Act and all other provincial income tax statutes.
Finally, the bill proposes amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act in order to clarify the application of the Society Act to the employers' associations established under the Public Sector Employers Act. The Society Act does provide the appropriate corporate framework and legal basis for the employers' associations in general. But certain unique features of the employers' associations, including the mandatory membership and the prescribed inclusion of a government representative on the boards of directors, have led to difficulties with the application of some of the provisions of the Society Act. The proposed amendments will disapply certain provisions of the Society Act from the employers' associations and thus establish modified provisions that will allow the associations to function in the manner that was set out in the Public Sector Employers Act.
F. Gingell: As I think all members recognize, Bill 44 is a potpourri of adjustments to various other bills and will probably be more properly debated in third reading. Having used the word potpourri, I want you to know that not everything in this bill necessarily smells quite as sweet as one might think.
I have two or three thoughts on the issues that are dealt with under the changes to the Financial Administration Act: the ability to appoint a new type of bureaucrat, a chief investment officer; and under section 5, the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate this chief investment officer to do things that are needed on a day-to-day basis. I certainly hope, and I will ask the minister to assure us of this in committee stage, that this is not a move away from ministerial responsibility. The whole process of government that we have in this country and in this province is based on the foundation stone of ministerial responsibility. In reading this particular section, one wonders if there could be a move away from that concept -- not intentionally.
I'm also surprised that section 4 is in this bill. I'm surprised that the Minister of Employment and Investment would have allowed the Minister of Finance to include section 4. Section 4 deals with the actions of a prudent person, requiring any trust or pension funds of government to be invested in a manner that a prudent, diligent and skilled person would do, rather than meeting a set of legislative criteria. I agree completely with what is trying to be accomplished. But yesterday afternoon we spent a lot of time in this House looking at the agenda -- I believe we'll be back at it this afternoon -- and dealing with Bill 41 and the community bank. So it becomes obvious to me that it will not be possible for the provincial government to invest any funds that they are responsible for in the community bank, because the basis of the way the community bank is going to finance itself is by using the government guarantee in exchange for slightly lower rates of return. The margin that will be sliced off will fund the community bank. This calls for a diligent and skilled individual to make a decision on an investment, as they would do for themselves. You obviously wouldn't take a lower rate of return in exchange for your own guarantee. This will be an unintended but effective barrier to any provincially administered funds that they are responsible for being invested in the community bank.
[ Page 11097 ]
Many of these housekeeping matters are put forward in a fashion that is going to make it easier to administer the act. One of the issues the social services tax gets involved with from time to time is whether two corporations -- through the manner in which they are owned and the individuals who own them -- are deemed to be associated. If they are associated, that has certain consequences for them.
British justice has always worked on the basis that you are innocent until you are proven guilty; there is a presumption of innocence. I don't know whether this is the first piece of legislation that takes away the presumption of innocence, but if it is, it's certainly landmark legislation. The sections of this bill that deal with the social services tax -- they commence at section 20, but it is dealt with more properly in section 23 -- actually change the issue from the commissioner being able to decide that taxpayers are guilty to the taxpayers being required to prove that they are innocent.
Another action of the government in this bill is to make sure that the government of the province always sits in front of every other creditor they can possibly sit in front of. I believe certain changes took place to some federal legislation which changed the position of the province from a preferred creditor to an unsecured creditor, and this bill moves rapidly to put the province back in that preferred position.
I understand the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to protect the pockets of British Columbia taxpayers. I presume that if I were in her position, I would be doing the same thing. But I always feel sorry for the people who get pushed out of the way. Sometimes, I'm sure, all of us believe that in cases of bankruptcy, many creditors are more severely damaged and hurt than the government would be if their debts were not collected. One worries about the domino effect that that can sometimes cause.
I agree with the change in the provisions to the Social Service Tax Act, which will protect British Columbia retailers from non-residents moving goods into British Columbia that are going to stay here on a permanent basis. This will deal with manufactured homes, boats, campers and all those kinds of things. Clearly, people who wish to reside in the province and use these products here as though they were residents on a permanent basis should be treated the same way as everybody else and not be given a specific tax advantage.
I'm pleased to see that the minister is bringing forward the various amendments required under the Canada-B.C. tax agreements, and that obviously the minister isn't planning at this moment to get British Columbia into the income tax collection and administration business.
[10:30]
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to more specific debate on the particulars of this bill during committee stage.
C. Serwa: Normally it's a convention of this House that when we come to a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill like Bill 44, rather than get involved in second reading debate on philosophy and principles -- because, as the minister has indicated, a number of these are housekeeping changes necessitated by the civil service, for example.... It's rather pointless to engage in an extensive philosophical discussion when we're looking at nine different statutes being amended. If we have the willingness of the minister to agree with the convention of this Legislature, and if we can have some reasonable latitude in Committee of the Whole to explore some amendments that have initiatives other than the changes required by the civil service, then I will not pursue second reading at this particular point.
Will the minister nod an agreement to give some latitude when we go through the bill in Committee of the Whole? The minister agrees. Thank you very much.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, in my short tenure in this House I have often wondered why.... When a bill of this kind -- I think the official opposition Finance critic said a potpourri -- is brought in on May 24, is reintroduced at the earliest opportunity, after members of the Alliance have been told that we're going to be debating Bill 14 not Bill 44, you have to ask what's going on. When you read this bill being brought in at the earliest opportunity, you see that it is anything but housekeeping. This bill is a major change in the way things are happening in this province, and it must not go without some very detailed scrutiny.
I have to tell you that in getting an opportunity to look at this bill.... I confess that I certainly had not anticipated Bill 44 today. I have not given it the level of scrutiny that it clearly deserves, but in reviewing it over the last number of minutes and reflecting back on some of the statutes that are going to be amended, I see that this bill changes substantially the way the government is going to provide for the investment of public funds through the establishment of a function of the chief investment officer. It is going to not only allow that chief investment officer greater latitude but is also going to allow that chief investment officer the opportunity to delegate to persons employed or retained by the government any powers or functions given to that chief investment officer under this part. This is a substantial issue that needs to be addressed here, because we're talking about substantial sums of the public trust that can be delegated away under section 5 of this bill. Through that delegation, that can be invested in a whole variety of different investment opportunities.
We have seen what this government has done already in its tenure with respect to investment in a forest company that it then had to regulate, and we saw the potential conflict of interest in that. We have seen this government dump money into the Vancouver Land Corp., and it is going to have to be an approving agency for the development of a massive casino on a site in Vancouver harbour. Incidentally, we read today that the casino is not going to be earthquake-sound, and if a major earthquake occurs, it is going to create a huge calamity. It's going to be interesting to see how that is going to work. We have seen a whole series of investments. We have seen that this government holds an investment in the Kemano projects with Alcan. There is now going to have to be some kind of authority with respect to the approval process of the Kemano completion project.
In this miscellaneous statutes amendment act, we have an opportunity for them to appoint a chief investment officer with delegational powers to further allow for those investments to take place without the scrutiny that members of this House must demand of moneys being invested on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's unbelievable that this bill should be brought in at the earliest opportunity. This bill was tabled on May 24, and it is now being brought in, after we were told this morning that we were going to be talking about Bill 14.
There is another section here, which I am going to defer to my colleague, with respect to the Hotel Room Tax Act. Again, that needs to be looked at.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. As the hon. member knows, the purpose of second reading is to speak to the principle. I'm not intending to restrict the member's debate, but we will be dealing with it on a section-by-section basis in
[ Page 11098 ]
committee. That's just as a caution to the member. Please proceed.
G. Wilson: I will certainly try to speak to the principle of each of these sections. The principle we're dealing with in this miscellaneous statutes amendment act is a significant change in the way government intends to distribute the public's money and collect taxation, with respect to taxation reforms in a miscellaneous statutes act and the changes provided for this, and also -- unbelievably so -- in how they are going to tax. They are going to put a tax on personal property in British Columbia of people who are ordinarily non-residents. I'm amazed that the official opposition doesn't seem to think there's a problem with the fact that the purchase price of a tangible piece of personal property that's in the province is now going to be subject to taxation by this government.
The basic principle of taxation is to provide services to residents and people who have an opportunity to vote for the government that has the power to tax them. It's called taxation with representation. A person who does not ordinarily reside or carry on business in the province but who brings in personal tangible property which is used here and which may enhance, develop and stimulate the economy of this province doesn't need to have the purchase value of that subject to taxation by the province of British Columbia. That, in principle, is a foul concept. Yet we heard just now from the official opposition that that's not a problem, and in committee we're going to find out why. You can't have this kind of change in a miscellaneous statutes act without having a profound effect on the intent of those who would ordinarily come in and spend dollars that will create opportunity for investment and stimulate tourism and tourism potential and development in this area -- if we're going to start to put those kinds of constraints on it.
In the judgment of those in the Alliance, this is a theft not unlike the corporate capital tax. It's one more grab for more and more money -- an opportunity for this province to put a provincial tax on a purchase price. If two similar objects are in British Columbia, one bought in the state of Washington and one bought perhaps in the state of Oregon, and the two purchase values are different but the same value is set here, we're going to have two different taxation values for the same commodity. That's what that says. And it talks about it for people who are generally non-resident in the province.
I can't imagine how the government thinks this is fair or sensible or in some way is going to stimulate economic investment. Further, I can't imagine how the official opposition doesn't have a problem with it. Nevertheless, there we are.
Similarly, if we go through the statutes in here, it's important that we look at the amendments in rural taxation that are being proposed with respect to the registration of liens on delinquent taxes. Some would suggest that is a good and sensible thing to do. We have to recognize that if the government is going to go after delinquent taxes through the establishment of liens and is going to provide some security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada, we have to make sure that the applications of those are consistent, fair and not arbitrary in their direction. Yet the language we're looking at in this miscellaneous statute tells us that in fact that may not be so.
I unfortunately haven't had time to look at this act in the detail that it deserves, because we had anticipated Bill 14, not Bill 44. This was only tabled on the 24th and has been introduced at the very earliest opportunity in this House.
Similarly, though, let's recognize that this miscellaneous statutes act suggests there is going to be an association of two corporations. In principle it says there's an associated corporation, which with respect to the Income Tax Act of Canada means that the government can determine or suggest that a lien -- in terms of the seizing and selling of assets of one corporation -- now may be associated with that of another. This is a pretty profound set of amendments that is coming in here under section 18.1.
We're dealing here with the definition of associated corporation as it exists now in the current statutes being repealed and being reintroduced with a new definition. That new definition adds a series of subsections. If you look at those subsections in terms of the meaning under section 256 of the Income Tax Act of Canada, those corporations may have to provide a defence of their position to defend themselves against assets being seized, liens being placed and a general kind of harassment that is going to be put against them as a result of taxes that are delinquent with a corporation that the government will say is associated.
This kind of amendment needs thorough scrutiny; it needs to be reviewed with a great deal of concern. In principle -- speaking of the principle of this -- taxation must be fair. It must be applied against a corporation under the terms in which that corporation is registered. It has to be looked at and reviewed as an individual opportunity by those investors in that corporation. To have the broad latitude of associated corporations that are going to find themselves under the harassment of tax collection because of delinquent taxes unpaid by an associated corporation.... The linking of those two corporations together is going to create further problems for investors in this province.
What have we seen here? We've seen this government, in principle, go after taxation in corporate capital tax. Theft! It's out and out theft. It doesn't talk about assets in terms of profits that are generated, but in terms of the value of commodity and collateral.
The second thing we're seeing in this miscellaneous statute is that if you've got personal property sitting in British Columbia, that's now going to be subject to tax on the basis of purchase price. You're going to have to start to pay additional tax on tangible personal property. We're also now seeing a greater latitude with respect to the linking of associate corporations as a result of delinquent tax.
This miscellaneous statutes bill has been introduced at the very earliest opportunity, when we all thought we were going to be debating Bill 14. In principle, when you have the kinds of amendments that we have with respect to the changes to the statutes in Bill 44.... I leave to my closing remarks the very largest of them that I think needs to be reviewed here, and that is the functions of the chief investment officer. Given the track record of this government with respect to the investment of the public trust in various corporations, the functions of that chief investment officer have to be reviewed.
When an independent commissioner was set up to find out what the government was up to with respect to investment in forest companies, we knew that there were some very clear recommendations put in place. We fully anticipated a change with respect to the way that this government was taking money out of the central revenue fund and investing it. We knew -- because the recommendations were clear, and this government didn't hide the fact that they were going to change those kinds of procedures -- that we could expect some changes with respect to how special funds were administered and directed. Here we see one of the most profound changes under those
[ Page 11099 ]
recommendations being slipped in through a miscellaneous statutes bill.
I find it curious that the official opposition is laughing, thinking this is a rather amusing tirade on our behalf, because they have no problem with Bill 44. We hear that they don't have any problem with those kinds of taxation changes. Well, let me say that we do have some serious problems -- not only with the way this bill has been introduced but with the way these changes have been drafted.
[10:45]
In my judgment, if anybody believes that this is simple housekeeping, they have not read this clearly and thoroughly, and they don't understand that it has to be reviewed in relation to companion bills that have already been introduced into this House and changed. They have to be reviewed with respect to Bill 41 and the establishment of a community bank. They have to be reviewed with respect to the government's already directed commitment of funds into the VLC and the development of gambling in the downtown Vancouver area.
The principles are very clear: this government is moving more and more into the direct investment opportunities that should be properly left in the private sector. They're committing greater and greater amounts of the public trust into those kinds of investments, when what the people of this province want is less and less government and more and more streamlined provision of services in the directions that the government should be putting their dollars toward: health care, education, social services and the justice system. This bill is clearly anything but a potpourri of housekeeping items. This is a serious bill that requires serious consideration.
I would have thought, given that this bill was only tabled on May 24 and introduced at the earliest time, that the opposition would be given the time to scrutinize the effect this is going to have; and more importantly, that the people of British Columbia -- who are going to be greatly affected by the inclusions in this bill -- would have had an opportunity to understand what this bill was all about and to recognize the kinds of changes this bill is going to make in their lives.
We cannot support much of what is in this bill. I think it is critically important that when we start to move into committee stage, we get down to the serious business of looking at the implications of what is provided for in the language of this bill. This government is not going to be able to slip through the changes with respect to the companion legislation, which is clearly linked to what is being attended here, without a great deal of scrutiny from the members of the Alliance -- even though the official opposition appears to have no problem with its content.
J. Tyabji: I'm glad that we didn't take a honeymoon, because if we had, we would have missed this. Clearly the Liberals don't consider this bill important enough to even put up a second speaker.
When we found out 40 minutes ago that this bill was coming up for second reading and had just been tabled -- in fact had only appeared in our books yesterday -- we had about 20 minutes to look through it. In looking through it, recognizing in second reading that we are addressing the principle of the bill, the only part that I feel can be supported in second reading is the part amending the Motor Fuel Tax Act that talks about labelling. The rest of the bill, in principle, is not supportable.
When we look at the Society Act changes regarding employers' associations, we find that a simple amendment through this bill is going to allow employers' associations to be exempt from the Society Act -- not that the Society Act has any teeth or is enforced today, but it is some comfort that special resolutions can be litigated against societies in the event that they are acting in an unconstitutional manner.
I wonder if the amendments to the Society Act that are quietly being put through with regard to employers' associations have something to do with what the B.C. Teachers' Federation is facing or with what we're finding in the government employers' associations, where their membership under the Society Act would be the people who are controlling, through their votes, what happens constitutionally. We are finding that that's not the case here. In this case, the employers' associations can bypass the Society Act and introduce their own special resolutions. In that case the Society Act has no impact. We know that the Society Act is almost never enforced by the Minister of Finance, even when societies are in complete breach of the intention of the act. There is usually a route through litigation, but that route will be removed for employees who are subject to the changes of this act.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
When we look at taxation without representation, in principle we can't possibly support the amendments brought in by this bill. People who are not only non-residents but who don't even usually conduct business here will be subject to taxes for purchase prices for personal property that they don't even purchase here; they just have to have delivery of it here. They don't even have to be here....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Liberals are saying that they support it because they are claiming it's been proposed by some Okanagan merchants. It doesn't matter who's proposing taxation without representation; I don't feel that it's something that we can possibly support.
With regard to the changes that we see in terms of costs, in two sections we have the same amendments being brought in -- one through the Hotel Room Tax Act and one through the Social Service Tax Act. The two sets of amendments are identical. What do we find in these amendments, and how is it that we can't support them in principle? Under both the Hotel Room Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act as they are amended, there can be a belief -- all it takes is a belief -- that two corporations are associated. With that belief, their records can be pulled. If the records are pulled and they are deemed at that point to be associated, a lien can be placed against their property. When the lien is placed against that property, there is also a further provision for seizure. There's a time limit, and then they can seize the property. Notwithstanding an appeal or that the corporation may be trying to lift the deeming of them to be associated with this other corporation, when that property has been seized, it can be disposed of by the government.
So we've got the heavy hand of government moving in and saying: "We believe you are associated. Therefore, because this corporation owes us money, we are seizing and disposing of the assets of this other corporation." This is where it becomes particularly distasteful: if it is found that the government is wrong and that the corporations were not associated, then the corporation that is not associated to the delinquent corporation whose assets have been sold and disposed of.... Does that corporation get reimbursed for the
[ Page 11100 ]
real value of the assets that were seized, for the appraised value or for something similar to the value of what was seized? Do they get compensated for legal costs, perhaps, or for time and grief? Is there some recognition by the government of the abhorrent act that has occurred, even it has been done in good faith? No, that's not what happens. They don't get the real value back, they don't get the appraised value back and they don't get compensation.
In fact, what they get back is either the release of the lien or the payment of the applicable net sale proceeds. What are net sale proceeds? That means that if there is some kind of bargain-basement sale, all that the corporation that is not found to be associated with the delinquent corporation whose assets have been seized and disposed of gets back is the net sale proceeds.
Even worse, if the director considers it appropriate, the government can pay costs to the Supreme Court for the litigation. The corporation whose assets have been seized and disposed of, which has gone through however long it's taken -- months, maybe years -- at the end of it all could be completely bankrupted by this. Not only are they not compensated, and not only do they not get back the original, real value, but with the way the bill is written, they can't even litigate for compensation. They can't even sue the government for the real value of what the government seized. That's absolutely disgraceful. It's unbelievable that this could come back.
What is this called? It's the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1994. The Liberals didn't even put up a second speaker. It's not just the Hotel Room Tax Act; it's also the Social Service Tax Act.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. May I ask you to take your seat for a moment. I just want to call your attention to a point of order. We established earlier in the House that given the nature of this, a multiple statutes or miscellaneous statutes bill, second reading debate would not be as detailed. The quid pro quo to that was that we would allow considerable latitude in committee stage. I just want to advise the member that if in fact we are having a full-scale second reading debate on this, it calls into question the agreement made earlier about committee stage. In short, we can't do it both ways. We can't have two second reading debates. I would therefore ask the member, in consideration for her colleagues -- the other members of the assembly who have effectively given up their right to have the debate now in order to have it in committee stage -- to please not, in effect, put herself in the position of not really having the right to carry on with this debate in committee stage. That isn't as articulate an explanation as I'd like to give, but I hope you take my meaning and will be guided by it.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I understand the nature of those comments. I would like to remind the Speaker that I only have a caucus of two, and in that respect we can hardly filibuster this in second reading. Since the Liberal opposition has decided to put up only one speaker, I'm sure the House can deal with our rantings for the extra five minutes it might take to give it more justice.
Having said that, I will take the Speaker's guidance and recognize that we will have the ability to debate the principle in committee stage. I have tried very hard to stay to the principle of this bill, which I find completely abhorrent and which the Alliance cannot possibly support. I'm really disappointed that we have given up our opportunity for second reading debate.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Liberal critic for this is saying that there's hasn't been a giving up. I will take the direction from the Speaker and say that there has been an agreement by the official opposition to give up debate in principle in second reading and move to committee stage.
The last thing that needs to be addressed in second reading and further in committee stage.... In addition to what we'll talk about in committee stage about the Taxation (Rural Area) Act with regard to the removal of lien and costs there, where there again the individual could be stuck with the costs of the heavy hand of government, I want to point out how in principle we can't possibly support the commencement clause. Obviously we will deal with that at great length in committee stage. I notice, as my colleague the Alliance leader pointed out, that the part of this bill dealing with the commencement of the pension funds -- which is directly linked to the community bank, which is linked to the casino, which is linked to the development corporations and Bamberton and all of the things that have been most controversial -- is under regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Why? When is it going to commence? Is it going to be retroactive? If so, when? Why is just that section singled out for a special commencement clause? Why is the commencement of the amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act -- which is, I believe, tied to the B.C. Teachers' Federation -- retroactive to November 30?
These are things that will have to be brought up in committee stage debate for extensive questioning. I recognize that we will have latitude in committee stage, and I look forward to the latitude. I would like to put the government on notice, as I'm sure they know, that we intend to spend a lot of time on this debate in committee stage.
I close by saying that I think it's regrettable that this was brought up and given so little time for scrutiny, and it's regrettable that the Liberal opposition has put up only one speaker and has given away our right to extensive debate in second reading. It's regrettable that this was not given the weight it deserved in second reading. We should have been allowed the time to research and give due consideration to each section, along with the companion legislation. I look forward to doing that in committee stage.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, according to your guidance, I will not take very much time at all in wrapping up debate, because I know we are going to have an opportunity for more debate as we get into the amendments of all of these acts during committee stage. I must say, however, that I am somewhat surprised by the outburst from the members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Okanagan East. Perhaps that is because at least half of their attack appears to be as much on the official opposition as on this particular bill, so there are clearly some other agendas at work here.
I believe all members were advised this morning that we were going to be dealing with Bills 14, 15, 20, 7 and 44 today. The first four bills were going to be done in committee stage. In discussion with the members who were in the House at 10 o'clock, I suggested that we do the second reading bill first so that all the committee stage bills could be done at one time. That is why we are dealing with Bill 44 at the beginning of the list as opposed to at the end of the list. It is easier for the Speaker in that regard. We're now going to be moving on to committee stage of the other bills in the order that they were given to all members.
I now move second reading of the bill.
[11:00]
[ Page 11101 ]
Bill 44, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: Committee on Bill 14, hon. Speaker.
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 14; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 9 (continued).
F. Gingell: This is another bill that deals with a multiplicity of acts. We have now got into the School Act. I must admit that my memory doesn't tell me how far we got in this discussion. We probably got through all the debate on section 9, and you're going to get it all again this morning, probably, because section 9 is a very important section. Having been on the school board for ten years, during the 1960s and 1970s, I see section 9 as not the beginning of the end for school boards, because I think the beginning of the end already started when the previous administration brought in block funding, and with the difficulty of school boards to raise additional funds to pay for the programs that they in their wisdom had determined were appropriate for their school district.
So perhaps the minister could start the rediscussion of section 9 by giving us an idea of the scope that you believe is appropriate for criteria for these determinations that you're going to make on administrative expenses.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I would note that the member said "rediscussion." I would remind all members that there has already been some considerable discussion here. That is certainly allowed, but please be guided by the fact that we don't want to belabour the point, especially because we're in committee stage rather than second reading.
N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: It's my pleasure to introduce 35 grade 5 students from McCloskey Elementary School in the beautiful constituency of Delta North. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: This section allows the Minister of Education to ensure that additional funds that are provided to school boards are spent for the purposes that they have been provided for. It also allows the minister to respond to widespread public concern about administrative costs and to ensure that administrative costs are being managed effectively and that money isn't being shifted from educational purposes -- from the classroom -- into administration.
Over the last number of years we have received very persuasive delegations from school boards, from parents and indeed from children themselves about the need for more special education funding in classrooms. When we have responded by providing more money, we then hear back that not all of that money has always found its way into the places that it has been provided for. That's unfortunate, but that is something that we have a responsibility to deal with, and that is part of this section.
The other part of the section relates to the administrative caps. It is the intent to then define administration through the accounting manual, which very generally defines administration as both school-based administration and district administration. District administration would include, beyond the obvious administrative services of the district, the business functions, the human resources functions and, I guess, what would be called the education policy or curriculum development functions -- which you as a former school board member would be familiar with, hon. member.
F. Gingell: Could the minister advise if she has any numbers in mind for maximum percentages of the total budget, the maximum dollars per student, the maximum dollars per class or the maximum dollars per school? I can appreciate there would be very many different criteria that one could use for measuring administrative costs or administration.
Hon. E. Cull: On March 10 the Minister of Education sent the funding letters to all of the school boards, so each school board has a maximum administrative expenditure prescribed in that letter. It is a dollar amount based on the funding formula with a percentage reduction that was applied to it to achieve the amount that fits within the cap. I am sure that the Minister of Education would be happy to share the summary information with you so that you could see what the individual school boards have in terms of administrative caps.
F. Gingell: Were the amounts that were devised to each school board determined by taking their historical expenditures -- the amount spent in the previous year or two -- and just reducing them by a given sum, or was it arrived at by some other form of analysis?
Hon. E. Cull: Thank you for your patience. I was consulting with Ministry of Education staff and the minister himself.
The funding formula generates a certain amount of dollars that can be spent on administrative costs. As you know, in the past that has been a funding formula, not a spending formula. So it hasn't had a direct relationship with the amount of dollars that would actually be spent on administration. The starting point was the funding formula: how much that would generate for the district in terms of administrative funding. Then each district was looked at individually. It wasn't an across-the-board reduction, although averaged out it was about a 19 percent reduction in administrative costs overall from the funding formula. But that varied from district to district, because some districts had already, through their budgeting process over a number of years, developed a very lean administrative structure; other districts had a less lean structure, if I can put it that way. We didn't want to arrive at a situation that would penalize those districts that had already taken the necessary measures to control administrative costs. Again, that's why I offer you the list of all the spending caps for administration by district. It would be more useful than talking about a hypothetical percentage decrease which varies over the 75 districts.
F. Gingell: I don't want to talk about a specific example, because we are dealing with the principle of the issue.
[ Page 11102 ]
As I understand it, over the years the block-funding system has been developed -- and these categories would be described as administrative rather than program costs -- and the ministry has come to the conclusion that in their spending plans the school boards have been spending substantially more on what you call administration than the addition of all of the blocks in the block funding that you would classify as administration. That having happened, and school boards surely having been aware of this, because they are well aware.... They are told what all of the blocks are, and they go and argue about the specifics of the blocks as they affect their own districts. These two things have come apart.
Do you think they have come apart because the block-funding formula was wrong and should have been more in line with the spending formula, or that school trustees are incompetent and cannot be trusted? I believe the minister was a school trustee in an earlier life. Do you think that the amounts were in fact reasonable and you're now trying to refocus the energies of the school board in their spending habits?
Hon. E. Cull: That's an interesting multiple-choice question, but let me answer it in the way that I think is most helpful. School board trustees work extremely hard to sort their way through budgets. Having been a school board trustee and having worked with many trustees over the years, I have a lot of respect for the work that trustees do.
All of the public sector right now is being challenged to reduce costs. In fact, on a regular basis the official opposition calls for reductions in overhead costs and for the elimination of waste and duplication. We want to make sure, when we are providing grants to third parties, that the government is responsible to the public, which does look to the provincial government for the adequacy of overall funding of school boards. I think the public recognizes that school board trustees make the decisions on where to spend the money on a day-to-day basis, but if they are unhappy about the lack of services in one area, they will also look to the provincial government with respect to whether the funding that was provided was adequate in the first place.
[11:15]
Since we have responsibility -- maybe not directly and legally -- and accountability to taxpayers in this province, we want to ensure that there is a hard look at administrative costs throughout the public sector. We have done that through our own budget process this year, where ministries who may have received increases in their budgets for programs were required to look at their administrative overhead and reduce it. They did not get increases there. They had to find efficiencies. We haven't funded negotiated salary increases, for example, in order to drive efficiencies into the public service, where we do have direct control.
With hospital budgets this year, the Minister of Health has provided direction on administrative overhead. The same applies here. The public is telling us that they want us to cut taxes and waste, they want to see the deficit down and they want to make sure spending is under control. But they are also saying -- in the case of schools and other essential services -- that they want more programming in some areas, or they want programming maintained. To be able to do that, we have to ensure that all parts of the public sector are being as efficient as possible. This is a case where we are saying that education budgets are going to be challenging for districts. They are going to have to work very hard to continue to provide the quality of education that we demand in this province. But we want to make sure that every dollar possible goes to children in classrooms and that there is significant pressure on boards and their administration to ensure that that happens.
F. Gingell: Throughout the minister's response is the suggestion that school boards aren't trying to accomplish the same thing, that schools boards are not recognizing that their focus is programs and that school boards don't recognize that you can't have programs without support. It brings to mind two things. First, in health care we're going in the other direction. You're saying that the provincial government is not going to make the decisions but will instead put envelopes of money out to the regional health boards, who are going to make decisions because things need to be made closer to home: the closer to home the decisions are made, the better those decisions will be. Surely school boards get elected on the basis of the programs and policies that they put forward. So in health you're going in one direction, where you're saying to get these decisions made on how money is going to be spent and what is going to be provided closer to home. With school boards you're saying that Big Brother knows best and is going to tell you how you're going to spend the moneys.
The next thing that bothers me is: "Well, we'll change our accounting practices around." The most important thing about accounting is for it to be consistent so that you truly do have comparisons. We're getting more and more, I hope, into making accounting fit with the goals. You determine the goals you're trying to accomplish; you find criteria to measure how far you are moving along on that road. The moment we should change our accounting practices is when we decide we can tie these two things in so that we can measure the resources that are being committed to accomplishing goals. I'm sure we don't have any problems; we're on the same side. But this could encourage.... They could spend a whole bunch more money on administrative non-school things and getting their auditors to come in and look for means by which things previously charged as administrative costs could now be charged to programs.
In the end, I guess, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education have to admit that what they're saying is that they don't trust school boards to do those things that are right for the children within their school district; they don't trust them any more and are going to have to lay down some rules that are going to have to be followed. I'm not sure there is a response to that. If the minister doesn't have one, I'd ask her to recognize my friend from Langley.
Hon. E. Cull: There are a couple of things that I want to correct in terms of the perception of the member. First, with respect to health reform, we're not just going to take envelopes of money, give them to community health councils and say: "Spend it however you like." There will be very strict guidelines that ensure that services such as acute care services or vaccination services for schoolchildren or other kinds of services are provided. Otherwise, you could have a community health council decide that there are no children at risk in their community because they don't believe that their children are engaged in risk behaviour and therefore they will not have a hepatitis B vaccination campaign. I pick what I hope is somewhat of an absurd example, but it's not out of the realm of possible things that could happen.
So there certainly will be guidelines and controls on administrative spending given to the health councils with respect to their budgets. That's no change, really. When it comes down to what happens right now, the funding that goes into the health sector just simply goes to a bunch of organizations in a region, and it comes with strings attached.
[ Page 11103 ]
They have to provide budgets; they have to fit into certain areas. We're going to say that rather than having ten institutions and organizations in a community receive individual budgets, there will be one institution, but there will still be rules, as there are for those individuals right now. One of the major benefits of this approach is that we will be able to provide the accounting consistency that the member has indicated is important, because all school districts will now have to report the same things as administration. In the past it's been very mixed, and it has been somewhat difficult to determine exactly what has been spent on administration.
I'll conclude with your final point about trust. I don't see this as a question of trust; I see this as a question of accountability. The public is demanding more and more all the time that all levels of government become more accountable around administrative expenses. That's why the Public Sector Employers' Council has taken to looking at full disclosure of executive compensation as one of its major initiatives, so that type of administrative expense will be well known and well understood by the public. We're providing for some consistency and providing for a target with respect to administrative spending, so the public can have confidence that districts are being treated equally and are spending equally given their obviously different circumstances as districts. When you reduce those different circumstances, we won't have one district that has very high and generous administrative expenses while others are being very frugal, because most people want to see those dollars going to their kids.
L. Stephens: I think all members of the House support education getting into the classrooms to the children. We would all like to see that. I'm not sure about the minister's comments about administration costs running rampant in some districts and not in others. What has been done in the past -- and I'm sure the minister knows this -- is the school boards have tried to allocate funds to those programs to deliver that service into the classroom, and some of the areas that were set out did not serve the purposes for which they were intended. Improving the financial accountability of the school districts, which was recommended in the auditor general's report of '93-94, appears to be the intent of the amendments to the School Act that have come forward.
I understand that the Minister of Education has prepared a new accounting manual, which has gone out to all the school districts, to set out more clearly what functions each of the allocations in their budgets is to cover and the manner in which it is to be recorded. The questions that I have are: will the accounting procedures be monitored, by whom, and on what basis?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there will be independent auditing of the expenditures on this. In fact, the Ministry of Education staff have advised me that that was contained in Bill 10, which was passed earlier this year.
Because I've just received this information, I might add this to the debate: in the last five years administrative costs in school districts have increased by 47 percent, and that has certainly been much faster than the rate of increase in their budgets. It's one of the things that is of concern to us.
L. Stephens: As I was saying earlier, the rate of increase in the administrative costs and whether or not the kinds of expenditures that are required by the school boards are being met by the procedures that were previously in place are in direct proportion to the inadequacies of the system.
With regard to Bill 10 and the independent auditors, I was asking whether the ministry will be monitoring the accountability of the school boards and the budgeting process, and whether that will be made public through the ministry.
Hon. E. Cull: The ministry does review the budgets that are submitted. They will then be compared to the administrative targets and that information will be made public.
L. Stephens: Will that be done on a yearly basis, reporting through the Legislature, the estimates, or in what fashion?
Hon. E. Cull: It will be available on an annual basis because the budgets are provided on an annual basis. I'm not absolutely certain how the ministry would plan to release that information, but I'm sure that the minister will be taking note and making some note of how this will be addressed. Generally, education budgets are available; they are public information. They are just not collected together in one place and released. That is something I'm sure people will be interested in, particularly as there are consequences for not meeting the budget targets.
L. Stephens: The minister was talking about accountability and the public demanding that accountability, and she's absolutely right. It is incumbent upon the ministry to make sure that that kind of information is available to the public. School boards and school districts need to be comparable. That's one of the things I would like to see as a result: the accounting of each district being made public so that there can be district to district comparisons. Then everyone knows and understands who has costs and who doesn't, and you can compare apples and apples as opposed to apples and oranges, which happens today.
[11:30]
I have another question under section 125.1(2): "The minister may vary a direction provided to a board under this section if there is a change in the circumstances under which the direction was made." Could the minister indicate what possible changes in circumstances may arise to have caused this particular clause to be inserted?
Hon. E. Cull: It would be changes in circumstances in the district that came about after the initial target had been set. In the case of special education, should a district suddenly see a dramatic increase in the number of students coming in in September that they had not anticipated, or a new school opening up that would have additional administrative costs attributable to it, this allows the minister to be flexible. If a target is set and circumstances change, the minister is not bound to an unrealistic target. It's appropriate for that flexibility to be available to the minister, in consultation with the board.
L. Stephens: I would assume that there is either a minimum or maximum formula for the targeting of special funds for aboriginal programs and special needs. There is already a formula in place to make allowances for that kind of variation in numbers. Is there any other possible change in circumstance, aside from the actual students or addition of schools or whatever -- other than something not related to the formula to provide those funds in the first place?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think there is anything else, certainly nothing I can think of at this point. In the case of administration, it's a maximum and it's based on projected
[ Page 11104 ]
enrolment. Should enrolment be much larger than was anticipated, additional costs will then be attributable to that new enrolment. You would want to have the flexibility to raise that maximum. In the case of special education, it would be less likely to see the minimum amount changed. But, again, if there were more students coming into a district and therefore more money provided, you would want to raise that minimum so that it reflected the reality of the district.
The Chair: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on section 9, which he adjourned debate on some time ago now.
G. Wilson: When I did adjourn last time, I was in the middle of a series of questions with respect to these educational programs. The minister may reflect back and recall that she had suggested that there were some already-established programs. Those programs were pretty much listed, and we understood how they were going.
I don't disagree with what the member for Langley or the member for Delta South were saying with respect to the need to try to get more dollars back into the classroom and making sure that the moneys designated for special programs actually end up there and not in administrative costs.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a trend within this government to centralize control over educational delivery in the hands of the government and to remove the level of autonomy and flexibility that currently exists within school districts. It is starting to remove local control on a whole series of matters. For example, we've already seen the centralization of bargaining under a different proposition and the move toward provincewide bargaining. That's something members of the Alliance do not agree with, and we think that needs to be reviewed. We will look forward to that debate when it comes up.
Our concern now is also transferred to this language. Not only does it suggest that there are going to be programs specified by the minister, which may be generated at the grass roots through the local boards, but it may also signal that there are going to be curriculum objectives set out by government that will then be directed to school districts, with respect to special programs and special needs outside of those that are already established within the district. Those programs may not meet the specific needs of a particular district.
I can tell you that in my riding, I represent three different districts. They have extremely different needs, and as a result of that they have a great deal of flexibility with respect to how those programs are met. All of them have a current concern, and that is the inadequate moneys for program delivery; they're consistent on that. But the types of programs that are needed differ from the south end of the riding to the north end.
So my concern is that under this section, where it talks about "(i) an aboriginal educational program specified by the minister, or (ii) an educational program specified by the minister for students with special needs," it opens the door for central ministerial control and direction. Indeed an edict could then come down, saying that we're moving toward a less flexible, more centralized provincewide curriculum with respect to how these programs are going to be written and delivered. I'd like the minister to tell us that that's not what is intended and tell us how those concerns are protected under the wide latitude provided under this language.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm pleased to be able to advise the member that that is not what is intended at all. There already is a provincial curriculum, and the provincial curriculum takes up a considerable amount of the school teaching hours. These requirements in the legislation will apply to that provincial curriculum. So we are not tightening the definition of the provincial curriculum or specifying it any more than it is currently specified.
We are simply saying that if you have been given money to spend under these program areas.... That's the way the funding formula works. There's a number of programs -- program 104, program 113, program 116 -- which apply to different categories of special education. Those are part of the provincial curriculum and provincial funding formula right now. What this legislation says is that, taking all of those special education programs together, if the province gives you $10 million to spend in that area, then you must spend $10 million in that area. You can't spend less than $10 million; you can spend more than $10 million, but you cannot spend less.
Particularly in the area of aboriginal education, there has been concern that the province has allocated money to districts for aboriginal education and the money has not found its way into those programs. So that concern has been certainly raised with the districts, but because of the accountability of the provincial government in this regard, it has come to the province as well. I hear all the words that everyone says about centralizing more authority, but I think we have to admit that when it comes to the school system right now, while the vast majority of the decisions around the administration of districts are made by school board trustees, the funding does come from the provincial government. I don't know if there is anybody out there who is raising money off a referendum any more. The money comes entirely through provincial taxes that are collected by the province and then distributed back to the school districts according to a funding formula.
Whether it's a lack of programming in aboriginal education or any other part of the curriculum, the electorate holds the province responsible for the adequacy of funding as well. We think it is very important that if we hear people in our province say we need more programs for our first nations people or for special education students -- and if we acknowledge that, agree with it, budget for it and provide the money to the districts -- we have some assurance that that money actually gets spent in those areas. Otherwise, what's the point in doing what we did this year, where we provided an additional $30 million for special education? If we can't guarantee parents and students that that money will go to special education, then we might as well have not even provided it; we might as well have just put it directly into the block-funding formula and given everybody else an increase of the tiny fraction of a percentage that $30 million would make on the overall school district budget.
That's not what the public told us they wanted. They wanted to see that money go to the purposes that it was deemed for. We heard that from teachers, who constantly raised the issue that the integration of special needs children in classrooms creates more challenges for them. They need more resources. We hear it from parents who want to make sure that their children get that quality education they deserve.
This is simply a mechanism for ensuring that when we go through a very difficult budgeting process and find
[ Page 11105 ]
additional dollars to spend in those areas, the money is in fact spent in those areas.
G. Wilson: I don't have any problem with anything that the minister just said. I have a great deal of respect for this minister, and I'm not trying to belabour a point. But that is not what this bill says. This bill does not say moneys designated for aboriginal programs and special needs programs must be spent on those programs. It says: "...a minimum amount or percentage of the allocation that must be budgeted and spent by the board for students enrolled in (i) an aboriginal education program specified by the minister...." Then it goes on to say a special needs educational program specified by the minister. That's what it says.
While we may have great faith in this Minister of Education -- or not, as the case may be; I'm not sure which, and I see he's applauding -- what does it mean if you've got that latitude in terms of who can direct which programs? The minister has that authority. That's the problem. If the intention is, as the minister has just explained, to say that a certain allocation of moneys toward aboriginal and special needs educational programming must be spent on those programs, but that those programs can be developed, directed and implemented at the local community level, then fair enough. You won't get any objection from me, and I don't think you'd get much objection from the districts.
Many districts have contacted our office to say that this is a concern. I see the member for Prince George is laughing. Perhaps he never gets communication from his school district. I can tell you that we certainly have, and we have discussed this with a number of the school districts in the northeastern part of the province. The concern we're hearing from the districts is that they don't want to have programs directed by the ministry. It's hard enough to budget with limited amounts of money to put programs into place when you have maximum flexibility without having to deal with the current trend of this government, which is to remove local control, authority and opportunity and at the same time -- as the member for Delta South correctly said, although I think the generically and politically correct term is now "Big Sibling" rather than "Big Brother" -- come down and be authoritarian in the way that you're going to direct that money. With all due respect to the minister, the language of this is specific on that point.
I'm well aware there are established programs and curricula. I have no problem with all of those things. The difficulty we have is that this language permits the minister wide latitude to change it -- maybe not this minister, maybe a subsequent minister. That could really make a very untenable and difficult situation for school districts in the province. The minister needs to address that.
Hon. E. Cull: If the section ended by just saying that they had to be aboriginal education programs, period, or special education programs, period, instead of as "specified by the minister," then any program could be designated as such. What we want to ensure is that they are provincial curriculum programs. The board has the latitude to develop its own local programs as it wishes. That's something that the boards are able to do. But with respect to what special education is and what aboriginal education is, we're targeting our money to provincial curriculum programs. That's no different from what happens right now. School districts are required to provide special education programs according to provincially set curriculum. They can decide, in their own judgment, to provide additional locally developed programs. That's great. Districts are there to be responsive to their students.
[11:45]
But we're trying to tie this money to the courses that they have to provide as part of the provincial curriculum. If they go beyond that and do locally developed courses, great. But we want to make sure that the money that is going in the block funding for these particular courses is tied there. This provides that definition. Otherwise, any program could be designated as special education or as aboriginal education, and that might not meet the needs of the parents and students who are looking for those programs.
G. Wilson: I don't know that we can belabour this point much further. It's on this very point that we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Under the act now, the kind of protection that the minister is looking for with respect to the delivery of curriculum is provided. It doesn't need this language in this particular amendment to do that, because the School Act clearly stipulates what can and can't be taught within the curriculum now. You don't need this particular amendment to make that clear. It suggests that program delivery is going to be centrally determined. That is not what boards want -- at least that's not what we're hearing they want.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I would argue that that's the wrong trend. We should be looking for maximum flexibility in delivery of special needs and aboriginal programs, because they vary widely as to what is relevant, what is necessary and what is good. Many locally developed programs are more relevant, in fact, to particular students who are enrolled in schools than what might be directed through the curriculum. So I guess we'll agree to disagree on that.
The other thing I want to ask the minister about comes out of a comment that was made last time and then reiterated this time. I think I jotted it down correctly; if not, the minister could correct me. I understand that the minister said the definition of what constitutes administration will be consistent across the province. If that's true, then maybe the minister could enlighten us. Perhaps the minister has a list of what is and what is not administration. This also is an area of considerable concern among trustees who see that there is going to be minimum amount of allocation that has to be budgeted for special needs, and a maximum amount that they are allowed to spend on administration. They want to know exactly what that constitutes. If there's a consistent list, then perhaps we could share it.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sure the Ministry of Education would be happy to provide you with a copy of the accounting manual that has gone out to all the school districts, which shows them exactly what is counted as administration and what isn't.
A few minutes ago -- I believe that you were in the House -- I did answer generally what is covered. The school-based administration is included in administration -- as is district administration, which would include the business function, the human resource function and the education policy function. I think that's generally what you would see in the administrative categories -- and, obviously, the superintendents, the assistant superintendents and the structure that is there. The district-based administration would all be part of that.
If you have ever looked at a school board budget, the line items go on and on. I haven't personally seen the accounting
[ Page 11106 ]
manual, but I would imagine that it would be somewhat thick and have many different things that would be attributable to administration. If you would like to have a look at it, I will make sure that the Minister of Education provides you with a copy.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I wish to introduce Mrs. Taylor from Vedder Elementary School in Sardis. With her are 20 grade 6 students, who are here to learn about democracy and how it is portrayed in this House. Hopefully they are seeing a good example of it. Would you make them most welcome, please.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's comments. In fact, I was not in the House, so I would be happy to get that list and examine it. I'll leave that section of questioning until I've had a chance to do so.
Perhaps the last series of questions that I have on this, and there are only two or three, again has to do with section 125.1(3): "A board shall budget and spend its allocation in accordance with any direction of the minister provided to it under this section." The concern, again, is that there is reasonable latitude in this language in the School Act already, so this is not necessarily a departure from the existing statute. However, look at the implications of 125.l(2): "The minister may vary a direction provided to a board under this section if there is a change in the circumstances...." The concern that we're hearing from trustees is that something is intended other than the kind of boilerplate commentary that is already in the statute. The minister has the authority to direct -- we don't take issue with that -- but the variance of direction may be punitive given that there are now some restrictions on minimums and maximums. That might be punitive to those boards that seek flexibility in program delivery or that may wish to vary the manner by which the administration of particular programs is handled in a very geographically complex district. Some are. Mine is, for one, because of the long, narrow coastal area, which requires some flexibility in the way programs are administered. So there is a concern that the minister is going to try to apply some kind of provincial standard that would be arbitrary in nature and simply not applicable to some districts. That would really cause them a great deal of concern.
Hon. E. Cull: The administrative cap is simply a dollar cap; it's not a prescription for how to set up your administration. Different districts will, of course, have different circumstances. You've just indicated the geographic circumstance of your district. Districts such as the one I'm in would have a very high number of special education students. That might require additional board/district level services. Districts might have big ESL populations which would have other administrative needs. The board retains the authority to determine how to allocate their administrative dollars. Again, I did say earlier that the way the caps were set was not simply arbitrary. It did take into consideration each district, their current spending patterns and how they had moved toward administrative efficiencies. That, I think, is well considered as part of the legislation.
When you refer to subsection (3), I think you have to look at the section as a whole. The first subsection under section 125.1 says that the minister may provide targets and caps, the second says that he can amend those and the third says that the board shall comply. That's simply what subsection (3) says. Without subsection (3), the minister would set targets and caps and could amend them, but there is no obligation in legislation for the boards to do anything except look at them and say: "That's nice." Of course, we certainly want them to look at them and comply.
G. Wilson: My last question really spins off a question asked earlier by the member for Delta South, which the minister has already answered. I'd like to ask a somewhat tangential question to that. There is a concern that if there is a variance in terms of the direction the minister can give, this is a very large club that can be used over districts with respect to their autonomy to make decisions respecting the wishes and desires of their community. Again, the real concern here is that it's big, centralized government taking greater and greater control and authority.
I will take at face value the commentary about the compliance requirement under subsection (3). Can the minister tell us why school districts should not be concerned that if they seek to try be more progressive -- I don't know what the right word is, but that might be a good word -- with respect to the desires of their own communities and that doesn't fall into line with the kinds of objectives now coming forward from the government with respect to the delivery of curriculum, service and education, there is a very large hammer that the government clearly has now, which was not there previously, with respect to these maximums and minimum? Albeit the government had the financial strings, that hammer wasn't as transparently obvious as it is now. So my last question would be for the minister to please give some assurance that those boards that are progressive, those that may wish to try alternative systems of education delivery in response to community needs, are not going to be punished as a result of their organizational systems.
Hon. E. Cull: There's no intent to punish the boards through these sections. The intent of the sections is to provide greater accountability for dollars that are given to the boards for specific program areas, for specific student needs, and then to ensure that administrative efficiencies are being sought diligently by all districts. Districts can spend less on administration. If they are creative, if they are flexible, if they come up with ideas that haven't been thought of before, they can spend less on administration than the target set by the minister as a result of this legislation. Similarly, they can spend more on special education. They can find additional dollars; they can use their local programs and their creativity and flexibility to do that as well.
The intent here is in one case to provide a floor and in the other case to provide a ceiling, in order to guarantee to the parents, the students and the taxpayers that money given to boards for specific purposes will be spent in that fashion, and that the school districts, like all other parts of the public sector, are looking diligently to control administrative costs.
The Chair: Shall section 9 pass?
J. Dalton: No, I don't wish it to pass. But seeing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 11107 ]
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:20 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: Today I'd like to continue with a couple of items in the directory that we were following the other day. We talked about programs in health, women's programs and others. I wonder if the minister might comment on the focus of education and whether that comes within her ministry. I know the social service people are involved with children in the school programs.
I know that Social Services is involved with youths and young adults who are carrying over their programs into adulthood and who have been under the care of the minister. I also know that Social Services is involved in educational programs for single parents or others. So there is a whole variety of educational functions without any particular designation of education. There seem to be many facets of education are in the minister's program as you look at it piece by piece. I wonder if she might comment on the focus of education, which is fundamental to every aspect of the support of persons by the ministry.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, you'll be able to find this. It's under rehabilitation resources, which certainly would not come to mind as being the link. Let me describe to you what the rehabilitation resources program is. It's our contribution to helping children who have dropped out of school or are having difficulty in school. We assist students in acquiring the academic or life skills they need to re-enter the school system or to continue with further education, training or employment.
Our ministry has developed a protocol with the Ministry of Education whereby the Ministry of Social Services funds child care workers who work in the schools. There are 200 programs affecting 8,000 children. In 1992-93 we entered into service contracts with 375 child care workers to provide behavioural management and counselling to students and their families.
If you wish, I'll describe what the child care workers actually do in the classroom. They assist with difficult-to-manage students, and they also do preventive work with families and students to prevent students from dropping out. Admission into this program is done through a local advisory committee.
V. Anderson: Perhaps it would be helpful if we go through the life cycle, because there are educational programs for preschool youngsters in day care and those kinds of things. There's an educational component in those programs. There's the educational program of home school workers and social workers who come into the elementary school and then in a different way into high school, and then there's the educational program for single parents who are trying to upgrade and get back into the workforce. Then there are educational programs for singles and for older persons in their fifties -- a retraining kind of thing which is tied in with their support. So it seems to me that there's a whole realm of areas that are gross cycles in a person's development, which is fundamental. So I'm surprised that it isn't really identified as part of the overall planning -- the same as health is there as an overall planning process -- since it's so fundamental to people at every stage of their lives as they get back into community activities.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me take you through the life cycle of a person; we touched on this yesterday. Especially in the area of teens, we give prenatal support to new moms down the road. Our family support can come into place in relationship to a child very shortly after that through the infant development program, which our ministry funds. We make a substantial contribution to support the parents of developmentally delayed children. Last year we assisted over 1,700 children and their families; this year we will provide 19 spaces to assist 1,900 children and their families.
You're quite right; after the infant development program, our ministry assists in the day care program by providing the regular funding of our day care subsidy. In addition, we have the special needs day care program. We did a wide-ranging study of special needs day care -- another term is supported child care programs. The report was released last year. We are now receiving feedback on it from parents and caregivers, and we are involved in discussions. It's anticipated that that program will move to the Ministry of Women's Equality; discussions are ongoing.
In this situation we provide support to families of special needs children in the three-to-five age group. When they go into kindergarten, the needs of special children become a component of the Ministry of Education.
I described to you our involvement in the schools in terms of child care workers. Let me also assure you that we are constantly reviewing our relationship with the Ministry of Education as it relates to children in this province. We are doing pilot projects. One example is in Westbank, where our staff are actually co-locating with Education staff to integrate our services. Another example is the whole area of speech therapy for children.
The next time in the life cycle is when someone leaves the school system. We have a series of supports for youth who have left and are actually outside the mainstream system. This includes our street youth program. Our adolescent services unit down on Drake Street is a model for other jurisdictions.
Let me tell you some other things that we do in the area of supports for youth. We have the youth-in-care network, which is now B.C.-wide. I met with them a few months ago. They're a very interesting group of kids who have had tough
[ Page 11108 ]
struggles in their lives, and the system -- let alone their own families -- has not always been kind to them. They have risen above it all, and with just a very little bit of support they are demonstrating that they're models to us, as well. The meeting I attended was run so tightly, so democratically and so fairly that I learned a few lessons from them.
We have hired youth artists for The Slice, a newsletter that is distributed to street youth. I'll get you a copy; the latest edition is quite interesting. We've also developed a youth advocacy demonstration project; we're organizing an aboriginal wilderness camp; we provide for youth peer support; we are planning and organizing a young parents' conference; and we're establishing a new fathers' support group.
[10:30]
Let me talk about services to former permanent youth-in-care in their transitions to independence. Previously we sometimes had situations where children who had left the school system and then re-entered it reached the age of majority, 19, and, under the old law, were no longer eligible for our support. We now provide post-majority support for two years after the age of 19. Even though this is not the time for discussions, there will be increased support in the new legislation for that area as well.
I just want to say that the reason why the education linkages don't show up in the telephone directory is that we're such a decentralized ministry, and our regional staff are the linkages to the education system and the programs in the field. Just as school boards develop local curricula and programming, we develop local programs on that basis as well.
V. Anderson: A number of things have come out of that, and I very much appreciate the presentation of the scope of that.
First of all, I supported the extension of support of youth of 19 until they finished college. That relates to a question of single parents or other people who are in college. If I understand it correctly, the limit on that at the moment is three years. Most college programs -- or many of them, depending on where a person starts -- are four-year programs, so a person is not able to complete the university or technical program they're involved in. If one is going to go through the majority of that program and it takes another year to complete it -- the same as with the youth -- it seems to me that it would be logical to carry them for the rest of the period. It's my understanding that for many that last year is a critical year and many are not able to make it. So I wanted to make a comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Your point is well taken, and we have actually removed that for income assistance recipients who are single parents. There is no longer the three-year limitation. Each case is assessed on its individual merits, and in many cases the support now goes beyond three years. That has occurred recently.
V. Anderson: I presume that the people who are in an education program in those first years are aware of that. Until very recently -- in fact, within the last little while -- I can remember persons who were concerned about this coming through our office. The ministry might want to inform people so that they can plan accordingly and not worry unduly if that opportunity is there. I would commend the minister for that.
A question that will come from others, no doubt, needs to be answered. Those who are on GAIN have the advantage of going through college by that means, but many other students on the poverty line have tried to work their way through college and have taken out student loans, which they then have to pay back. I know it's' not in the minister's direct jurisdiction, but the question arises: would those students be better off getting their education by taking out student loans or by going on welfare? The dividing line separating the advantages of one and the other needs to be clarified.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will make sure that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour takes into consideration the question of making students aware of the potential for support beyond three years. He will now be responsible for that program. It's a good point and should be included in our upcoming communications outreach. I'll ensure that he's well aware of that.
We ask people who come to us for income assistance while attending school to first apply for a student loan. We are truly the payer of last resort. It's not a matter of people having a choice between going on income assistance and getting a student loan; they must apply for a student loan first. In his wide-ranging review of income support, Mr. Axworthy is including the question of how we deal with youth from both the student loan and income assistance points of view. We will be able to look at the inequities in the system at that time.
V. Anderson: Following up on the student question, a concern has come up at Langara campus, which is in my riding, as well as at others around the province. Maybe there was some discussion about it even up until last year. When students applied for loans in the fall as they went into school, they didn't know whether they were going to get them until some time in January or February. The school year was almost over before those loans, if they were going to get them, were available. These students were living in very dire circumstances or having to apply for social services without knowing, even though they'd made application, whether they were going to get the loans. This kind of bind is not helpful to the students' physical and educational well-being. Is there discussion about timing these things so that there will be better cooperation between ministries in enabling students to know they'll be able to get the support they've asked for through student loans?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me tell you my understanding of what the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is doing, and we can discuss this with him under his estimates. We are streamlining the process for student loan approval, and we're putting more resources toward that process.
In a case where a student finds himself or herself in a situation of dire need during the period of time until the student loan comes through, he or she is eligible to apply for hardship grants. There are many cases where that has occurred.
V. Anderson: If they have applied for hardship grants while they're waiting for a student loan and have advised that a student loan is forthcoming, do they pay that back after they receive the student loan?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Under the current system, they don't.
V. Anderson: Thank you.
Much of the educational flow is an overall flow through early childhood, and the basic education of children is so much set in the early part of a child's life. There are in-school
[ Page 11109 ]
food programs where there's inadequacy in that area, and that's a stopgap measure, but it doesn't necessarily meet the in-home needs of that child. What is being done to meet the in-home needs of the child who comes to school for food? That is a stopgap, because it's not dealing with the other problem the child has at home.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We offer a wide range of family support services in the homes of children with parents who are usually single; we also assist two-parent families. To give you some examples, we have the Nobody's Perfect program, which is a parenting workshop -- an excellent program. Many of the programs in our area are targeted toward new Canadians or recently arrived families, giving them examples, training and instruction on how to work the system in terms of parenting in Canadian society.
There are also homemaker services where trained personnel assume full or sometimes partial responsibility for child care or household management on a short-term basis. We have respite services, which give temporary relief for parents of children with special needs. We have the family advancement worker program which is available to parents of elementary-school-age children; the worker assists the family with things like budgeting, life skills training and feeding. We have parent mutual aid and family resource centres. Here we provide funding to assist in the development of self-help parent groups. Many of these involve single mothers; the centres provide assistance with life skills and advocacy training for the parent to advocate on her own behalf. Those are just some examples. The budget for services to support families is almost $58 million this year, an increase of 7.6 percent.
V. Anderson: I know there have been support programs for life skills training, budgeting, food preparation and those kinds of things for some time. Feedback on a significant number of these programs indicates that these programs have been given by persons who live a middle-class lifestyle and have very little awareness of the actual difficulties of people who live on low incomes in purchasing and in budgeting finances -- the way it comes in and the kinds of bills they have -- and of the reality of the lack of support there. The kinds of programs these people have been receiving assume the financial resources and the ability to shop, which is just not available to many low-income people. For instance, the stores in the areas they live in are usually high-cost stores, and this is true all over the place. They aren't able to get to the low-cost stores or don't have the funds to buy in bulk like other people do; they have to buy little by little. So the instruction and support has come across many times as negative, because it's not by people who have lived in those circumstances themselves. It's kind of like only an alcoholic being able to talk to an alcoholic.
[10:45]
Is there a program encouraging non-professionals who have gone through these experiences to help these people as peers in the development of budgeting, food preparation, purchasing and stuff? It's a whole realm in which very few people, except people who have lived like that, are qualified. University education or degrees will disqualify you from being able to do that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that one who has experienced poverty knows much better how to deal with poverty. It is a legitimate critique of our system to say that in the past the services have been delivered from one level of society to another. We're trying to change that, though.
We have a very innovative project at UVic which our ministry is actually funding. It's called Protecting Children by Empowering Women, and it targets mothers who may be at risk in caring for their kids. The program is the mothers themselves, and it involves the clients, the community workers and the local residents in developing solutions and developing how we deliver the services.
The project has a couple of legacies. One was the establishment of two advisory committees with two participating offices; again, these are client advisory committees. The objective of that advisory committee is to increase the dialogue between clients and staff on how to deliver services that are client-centred and not just laid on top of them. Also, the Victoria Empowering Women project has resulted in the establishment of a resource centre in Chilliwack that is staffed by clients on income assistance. Our ministry provides the centre, and the centre allows them to access available services, although we find that is minimal because they're empowered. They're doing it themselves. The project is a good one in the sense that it has actually enhanced clients' self-esteem -- at least that's the feedback we're getting -- because their views are being valued and taken into consideration.
We're reviewing the hiring practices in the two participating offices to ensure that the qualities and values of the prospective staff actually meet the client-centred philosophy. We have established a respite home for foster parents in Vancouver -- again, people delivering the services themselves. We are also working with the Ministry of Health, and this will come up again under the Ministry of Health estimates. They have a nutrition branch that actually works with the clients who need to use food banks and who are developing community kitchens. They are at the forefront of providing nutrition for children and families who do not have a lot of resources available.
V. Anderson: Each one of these raises a whole host of other follow-up questions. This is exactly what we hope for because it brings out information, some of which we are aware of and some of which we aren't.
One of the things I might ask in passing is whether the minister is aware of the Poverty Game and whether she's had a chance to play it. I would encourage the minister and her staff to take the opportunity to go through the Poverty Game from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group because I'm sure it would help communication on everyone's part.
This leads to another question. How much is the ministry working with UVic and with the schools of social work in the other universities around the province in the development and training of social workers who are beginning in the field?
Let me refer back to the inner city service project initiated in Vancouver by students back in the late sixties and early seventies. Students from social work, law, medicine, theology and other areas worked in this inner city service project downtown. I have mentioned before that the project is where Mike Harcourt got his community start. They were learning to deal with people rather than with problems, and that's a whole different orientation.
The academic faculties, whichever faculty it is, tend to work with their own language and style. I became very conscious of this when my wife and I picked up a lady on her way into Penticton late in the evening; she had been out on a ride and had decided it was better to get away than to stay around. We took her into town. We hadn't gone more than half a mile in our conversation when she turned to me and asked if I was a social worker. She picked up very quickly, by
[ Page 11110 ]
the concern, the style of questions and the way I was phrasing them, that I wasn't the normal, average, run-of-the-mill person off the street. I just grinned and acknowledged what I was.
That highlighted that the very educational program leads us away from dealing with the reality of the people on the street. I'm wondering what's being done in the training or reorientation program when people are hired, so they're able to break the shackles of their academic gowns at the very beginning and put on not just their street clothes but their street attitudes, language and style.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm well aware of the Poverty Game. I personally haven't played it, and I see that as a deficit. I will play it. The FAPG has gone around to all our offices, and our staff members have played it, so that's good news. The feedback I hear is that it has been an invaluable exercise. I could perhaps offer to bring it to my entire caucus, and we can do it together.
Let me address a couple of things on the issue of social work training and the training of our own staff. We get together regularly with all the social work schools to talk about how to make social work training reality-based. We have input, but we don't have authority to direct the training in the schools.
It's my view that the trend is changing in that area, just as all academic training is moving toward being reality-based rather than academic-based. We do have input into the schools of social work, and we make sure we do that regularly. We also have our own very intensive training program, where we know that it has to be based on reality. We have one of the largest training staffs of any ministry; there are 28 FTEs solely dedicated to training. One of the things you may recall from the superintendent in the Vaudreuil review is that we are going to undertake a major review of our social work training, and change it to better meet the needs of the difficult situations families face today, which they perhaps didn't years ago.
We have a two-week centralized core training program which is revised each year. We're increasingly gearing our trained community support and community involvement to meet the needs of families. That will be continued and enhanced with the new act. Lastly, we have community development workers who are part of our staff and whose job is to keep us in line with community needs and to be the voice for the community.
V. Anderson: I'm pleased to know about those particular trends. Are there low-income persons who are part of that training team on a regular basis? I hope there are; I hope they pick people who are angry and frustrated instead of those who are polite in presenting issues so that they can experience what it's like.
I remember when this first came home to me. We had a gentleman in theology who had come off the street. He was a clever poet and able student; academically, he could keep up better than most. However, he made us mad every time he spoke. He was so angry about everything he said to us that we fought with him every time we got together. So I said to him one day: "What do you do this for? You know full well you make us angry and we don't get anywhere. But you could present it in a way that we could accept and understand." He said: "Yes, I could do that, but it wouldn't be fair to the people on the street, because I would have left out their frustration and anger, and the reality of what you have to learn to deal with. Rather than us having to learn to deal with you, it should be you learning to deal with us." I hope that direction of learning to deal with the reality of the street rather than the other way around.... What is the involvement of SPARC -- the Social Planning and Research Council -- which intervenes on behalf of street people in the community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In our training, we try as much as possible to involve the people who are actually in receipt of our services. We not only involve them but also seek their advice on how that training should occur. For instance, the FAPG is involved in our financial assistance worker training. Our social worker training modules involve participation by foster parents, kids in care, former youth in care and a wide range of clients who are part of our system. The training of social workers who are responsible for service delivery to people with mental handicaps involves the clients themselves -- the mentally handicapped and their families. The training will only work when it's a two-way street -- not only from our staff to the client but also from the client to our staff.
V. Anderson: I have heard thank-yous expressed on a number of occasions for the support the minister showed in the presence of ministry staff at the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. annual meeting at Naramata. They appreciated that very much, and they doubly appreciated the staff being there as listeners for the period of the conference so they could hear everything that was being said. They really felt that some attention was being paid to them in that regard. The only comment I would add is that if the minister could stay even for a half-day -- to listen, as well as to speak -- then that would also be greatly appreciated. Just so you might be aware of it, September 29 and 30, I understand, is the annual meeting of the FAPG this year. Perhaps you could book that one early again at Naramata.
A number of things have come out of that. I went away from that for a moment, and I'm trying to get them back in my mind. I think some of them will come up as we move along.
One of the areas I would move on to is the multicultural division, but before I do that I would like to ask about advocates. It's been my experience that whenever a person goes to a social services officer -- particularly if there's any kind of stress at all, which there usually is because of their circumstances -- it's very important to have an advocate there to take the pressure off. Such an advocate is helpful both to the staff person and to the client, because he or she is able to hear what's being said by both of them and is able to clarify for the staff person that this is not what the client is trying to say or clarify for the client that this is not what the staff person is trying to say. A neutral person can provide support and understanding to both parties, and, I think, can do away with a lot of miscommunication problems.
[11:00]
I was just discussing a particular case this morning with some of your staff, but I'm wondering if the ministry is generally open to the presence of advocates when desired. Would the ministry give some support to such advocates and tell people that if they want to bring someone, the ministry would make him or her welcome because it would be helpful to everyone? I think this would take a lot of pressure off. Sometimes because they are able to bring somebody, they won't feel they need to. Having worked with single parents or single people, I know that often when there was a good single parent program that they were available to go to, they would say they didn't want to go to the program and would stay at home instead. But the very fact that they had an
[ Page 11111 ]
alternative made all the difference in the world to them. I can say from experience that if there were some encouragement in the system for advocates -- with guidelines and with the understanding of all the parties as to why they're there -- then this could be a very useful program for everybody involved and could do away with a lot of the emotional miscommunication that's going on at the present time.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, we agree that in many circumstances it's advantageous to both parties to have a third party there, whom we label "advocate" but who, I'm sure, often plays a different role -- sometimes a mediative role, etc. That's why our government remains committed to funding advocacy groups at a very high level. In terms of the actual advertising, sometimes when I go around the province I get feedback from advocacy groups, who thank us for the money and then say: "Now stay out of our face." I appreciate that advice. They see it as their role to make sure that clients know to do the advertising, and we provide funds for them to do that. I don't mean that those advocacy groups are taking an adversarial approach, but they see it as their job to do that. Actually, our offices do advertise the advocacy role; there's a closer link. But we encourage advocacy.
V. Anderson: Also, hon. minister, you mentioned the community centre that was being started as a pilot project. There are many community self-help groups around the province, such as FAPG. I've had the opportunity to work with those groups for over 20 years. Some of them came into being initially with support from the former NDP government. Then when the Social Credit government came in, all that funding disappeared, and those groups were in a very tragic situation. Through interchurch help, a lot of them were able to carry on until they could re-establish themselves. One of the main difficulties those people have is getting office space to meet in, with heat, light, electricity and a telephone. It isn't a question of time, because most of them are able to give their time in a cooperative way. Is there a program whereby these groups could get minimum support for offices and telephones, and the basics? That would enable them to meet without wondering, month by month, if they can pay the telephone or electric bill but instead could get on with the self-help program, which they're delighted to do.
The other thing I've found with those groups is that budgeting was extremely tight. If they got a grant of $500 for two or three months of electricity or light or whatever, at the end of those three months they would report back that they had spent $459.37, and they would return every penny of the money that was left over. I've never met a group that was so exact and penny-wise about how they spent their money. So it seems to me that it would be extremely valuable to give them that limited security to let them get on with the task.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Advocacy funding is part of our community projects funding budget, and last year we spent $1.36 million on advocacy. I'll be frank with you: that is really project-based rather than sustaining core funding; that wasn't the intent of it. That's not to preclude an organization from making an application through the local office. Those budgets are approved at the regional director level. A group can certainly go into a local office and find out how to apply for that -- maybe there are some creative ways of making that application -- but the fund is more project-based than core-funding based.
V. Anderson: I can understand that. Having been at the other end of the scale, I recognize that any group that relies on government funding for more than 50 percent of its project, no matter what it is, will eventually get into trouble. For one reason or another -- a change in government or the same government changing priorities -- they will cease to get funding.
But I would still like to come back to that, because I think project funding in the long run is self-defeating, compared to the minimal amount needed to pay for telephones, light and basic office space of a kind, I know, that wouldn't meet government building standards. For instance, our constituency offices didn't meet any of the standards when they were tested; they were poor, poor, poor all the way down the line. I was kind of delighted that we got that kind of classification, actually. It let me know that I was still part of the regular community. So when anybody says I'm wasting government funds, I simply give them the audit and point out what's happening with that. It seems to me that it would make far more sense, over a period of time, to give a basic amount for heat, light and minimum office facilities. Then they could expand and add to it if they like. But for people who are insecure in their food, clothing and shelter to come together and not have a meeting place and not be able to use a telephone -- because many of them don't even have a telephone at home -- that kind of service would be the most important thing you could do for them in building a self-help community and being able to go with it.
I would urge the minister to give that serious consideration and even to experiment with some areas -- if that's the way we get at things these days -- in cooperation with these groups and then come back. I won't push you any further at the moment unless you want to comment on that, but I think that would be extremely helpful. You could do it on a project basis. Unless regional managers have consciously been given some leeway to move in that direction and the people applying have some kind of basic guidelines for that, it seems to me that the tension builds up in trying to manoeuvre the system rather than use it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'll certainly take that under advisement. I can't give you a reply on it now, but I will assure you that our regional directors do try to have an evenness of advocacy services throughout their regions. We also work with organizations to seek out alternative support on their behalf from churches and community halls, etc.
V. Anderson: I'm glad the ministry is helping with those alternative supports.
That leads me back to an item the minister did comment on. Having been involved in the beginning of the food bank in Vancouver.... I've heard again in the last couple of months about the lack of recognition of food banks by the official government system. It's unfortunate that we need them at all, but over the period of time that I've been involved, there has been ongoing discussion that the food banks were supplementing the actual income of people, which was not meeting their needs -- men, women and children. I think the statistics were that a third or half of those who now use food banks are children, handicapped people, people who are unable to work or are unemployed, as well as the partially employed.
On the one hand there was no recognition or support given to food banks, and on the other hand the social workers, out of necessity or their own personal concern, were not officially supposed to refer people to food banks. That would look like part of the welfare system and the
[ Page 11112 ]
government was just off-loading onto the community. Knowing the needs of the clients, we're indirectly saying that if they need extra help, here's one place where they can get it. The tension between those who work in food banks and the social service system has been there continually ever since the process started back in 1981. Could the minister comment on it? Is there a new approach? Until recently, there was absolutely no interaction between food banks and the government. They were two separate worlds that never even talked to each other. When the food banks attempted to talk to government, they nearly always found closed doors.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, you are correct in saying that we don't have official linkages with various food bank operators. But I will tell you that there is interface taking place at the local level now. There are general meetings at food banks in Victoria, for example, and usually our staff attend those meetings and try to keep up with current issues and share information. The other indirect but strong linkage is through our advocacy groups and our very close relationship with them. Many of our advocacy groups are involved with food banks as well. I share with you the goal to rid ourselves of food banks through the eradication of poverty. At the end of the day there's no question that this is the principal dilemma.
V. Anderson: From the beginning, food banks have wanted to work themselves out of business. Unfortunately, rather than doing so, they've become the fastest-growing business in the country -- partly because they aren't working with anybody to find viable alternatives that can be developed over a period of time.
Is it possible for the planning and review departments of the government to sit down officially with people who are involved in food banks and ask: "What are the causes of food banks? Who comes to them? What changes can we make to the system that might be more helpful to these people so that they do not need to go to food banks?"
[11:15]
I came into government to find those alternatives, which can only be discovered not by ignoring them or by informal conversation, but by facing the problem and recognizing it as a major concern throughout the whole province, as well as across Canada. Why can't we sit down with this significant group, like we do with the forest or the fishery groups, and ask what we can do to address this concern, which is of particular significance to young people, to those with handicaps and to the unemployed?
There is a crucial need for many people in the province to use food banks on a regular basis. I see no reason why the government shouldn't set up formal consultation. We talk about the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, but unless they're specially invited and supported, only a small number of these people are likely to be there. It's important that those who meet there can be fed.
I encourage the minister and ask if there is a way that informal studies and sharing of ideas can bring together people who work for the food banks, many of whom also receive food from them. They work and share back and forth. People who receive food also ensure that food banks are operating. Is there a way that process can begin to be recognized and be responded to?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The suggestion to extend a special invitation to food bank organizations during the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living is an excellent one. I will make sure that the invitation gets into the system quickly. Let me take your suggestion back to our policy and planning division to see if we can explore any of the possibilities you've suggested.
V. Anderson: I'd be happy to have an invitation to the forum.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You will, don't worry. You'll be working all summer.
V. Anderson: That's fine. I thank the minister for responding to that in a positive way. I realize she can't promise the world at this point; nobody would expect her to. But I'm sure they will hear about that. You'll also be hearing from them about an opportunity to do it in the same way that you brought the conference here last fall for low-income people. That was an excellent conference initiated and undertaken by SPARC on your behalf. I hope SPARC might be included in more effective ways in this program.
It's that kind of interaction which will give people promise and hope. My feedback at the moment is that there have been lots of promises but no hope, or very little. When that happens, there's more discouragement because of the promises than if they had never been made in the first place. I know it takes time, but when you're in desperate straits a day is a month, a month is a year and a year is a century, so it's important that we try to get some messages out to them.
I will move to the multiculturalism division for the minister's comments on this division and its place in the undertakings.
Hon. J. MacPhail: My ministry is committed to effective service delivery for all families and children. We are making our system more sensitive and responsive to the cultural differences in B.C. society, and we must ensure that culture and language are not impediments to providing effective service. All our staff are trained to create a climate of sensitivity and acceptance for multicultural initiatives, and our ministry has established standards consistent with the Multiculturalism Act, which ensures that legislation, policy and practices are culturally sensitive.
Our ministry advisory committee on multiculturalism created a comprehensive report, which I know you've read. Called "Multiculturalism: Towards Cultural Competence," it was released in August 1992, and we have acted on the recommendations laid out in it. We established the multiculturalism program and have developed a cultural competency workshop. This workshop is to be delivered to all our staff. I've had an opportunity to sit in on a bit of it, and it's an excellent program. Because the scope of the program is so wide and we have made a determination that each and every one of our staff should have this training, we have made the program part of our personnel and training division. It's a permanent part of the division now. To date, 2,500 of our staff have been trained in cultural competence, and sessions are scheduled for all our ministry staff to be trained by December 1994.
V. Anderson: As you say, it's a broad awareness of people. I'm wondering if the minister could highlight some of the priorities of that training and awareness besides the general competence and sensitivity of the staff. Are there any particular outreach programs either within the ministry or in cooperation with other ministries, which are significant in this particular area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We are doing outreach to the extent that we are ensuring that the multiculturalism branch of our
[ Page 11113 ]
government is on-line with what we're doing. They are relying on us as a resource, and that's fine. That's good; that's corporate responsibility. There's also a demand from outside agencies for our training program, and we try to meet those requests wherever possible.
As I mentioned earlier, we also have our program of community development workers. In the Vancouver area, for instance, we have a community development worker whose sole responsibility is outreach to the multicultural community. She is proving very effective in doing that. As an example, when our Somalian community found themselves under attack -- I use those words deliberately -- through media coverage, our community development worker made sure that she was in touch with the Somalian communities and established a regular liaison with them. I have been approached by the Iranian community about meeting with representatives of that community to ensure that we're meeting their very specific needs as well. There's lots to be done. To make sure we're keeping up with the needs, we have a subcommittee of our ministry that is responsible for the multiculturalism program and for keeping it current. They also work with our employment equity committee. The two are related. The best thing you can do to integrate and to meet the needs of any culture is to ensure that they're living free of poverty. A good hiring process goes along with that.
V. Anderson: I know the minister is aware that I am also the critic for multiculturalism, immigration and human rights; all of these things overlap. A lot of my previous experience was in this very field, working with interfaith and multicultural groups. As you've indicated, it seems to be very important that the government as a whole would be working along with this. Normally we hear of the multicultural branch, which Ed Eduljee is head of, as a kind of community focus group for multiculturalism within the community. Out in the community itself -- and in spite of what the minister has said -- I don't think we have heard a lot about the relationship between multiculturalism and Social Services. Could you indicate the nature of the cooperation that exists between these two branches, which are working with these various groups on matters of community development, education and community programming? I think many people would touch both of these common areas.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's one area of our ministry that I'm particularly proud of, so if we're not getting our message out strongly enough, we'll ensure that we do that.
There is an interministerial committee chaired by the director of multiculturalism, and we are a strong, committed participant in that interministry committee. Our contacts with other ministries in this area are much more on the ground, because they are coming to us for part, or all, of our training program. We liaise with them regularly at the service delivery level.
V. Anderson: If it's possible, I'd appreciate getting a copy of the training program manual or document that's available to the public, because it would be helpful to know about it and also to share it with other people. I would appreciate any material or brochures that I could share with people; I'm in touch with a lot of multicultural groups as well. I'd be happy to share that information. I'm sure they would be concerned about it, because these persons not only have the struggle of adapting culturally within the community, whatever their situation might be, but they also have the problem of adapting economically.
Perhaps the minister would comment on the relationship of immigrants and refugees in the area of social services. What are the opportunities for them in terms of the limitations for immigrants, on the one hand, who are landed and recognized, and refugees, on the other hand, who are not yet recognized but are in the process of recognition?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We want to make sure that we do as much as possible to lower the language barrier. We encourage clients to bring family or friends with them when they need translation services; we will delay processes until that's available. We also encourage our staff to access interpreters for people whose first language in not English. We will request written translations of materials for clients through a major translating agency in Vancouver.
Our community development worker program reaches out to communities. Some communities, or a substantial portion of them, are here on refugee status -- some from Latin American countries and some from eastern European countries. It makes sense to reach out to a community which has had an influx of refugees and immigrants.
[11:30]
We also support refugees and immigrants through hardship grants as an interim measure; refugees are eligible only for hardship grants. The federal government just changed the law so that refugees can seek work, so we will be working with them very closely to assist in that search.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could explain hardship grants. I realize that people are eligible for hardship grants, but I thought they were also eligible for regular social services when they had no other means of support -- at least that's the broad understanding within the community. I would like to clarify at what point they are eligible if they are not on social assistance except for hardship grants. What is the nature of those hardship grants and when can they receive support?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The law prohibits regular social assistance for people with refugee status; they become eligible for regular assistance -- which is actually called temporary assistance, but that is the regular stuff -- only when they get landed immigrant status. However, until that point they are eligible for hardship grants, and we have a category called "ongoing hardship grants." So, in effect, is their financial needs are taken care of to the same level as anyone else, but it's in that category.
We also work closely with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to make sure that they keep pace with processing refugee claims up to the point of getting landed immigrant status. Hardship grants are a major part of our budget.
V. Anderson: I wasn't quite sure about hardship grants being a major part of the budget. Is that in regard to refugees or to the total budget? I just want to clarify that so we understand what it is.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't differentiate on the basis of country of origin. Sorry, I meant that it was a major part of our budget, not just as it relates to refugees.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:32 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]