1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 8

[ Page 11717 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today are some friends from Capilano College: Mark Battersby, from the faculty association; Graham Crockart, recent chair; and Doug Jardine, president. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to please welcome to this Legislative Assembly 42 grade 10 students from R.C. Palmer Junior Secondary School in the riding of Richmond East.

J. Sawicki: I'm pleased to have one of my constituents visiting us today: Mr. Lou Jaccard. Lou is one of those many citizens who has spent a good number of years being very involved in what happens in this place and in what we're all doing here. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

R. Neufeld: I'd like everyone to make welcome Penelope Chandler, who was a special assistant to Rita Johnston when she was a minister and Premier.

D. Streifel: I stand today to make an introduction on behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey-Green Timbers. A friend of hers, Susan Sanderson, from Surrey is visiting us here today. Could we welcome her on behalf of the member for Surrey-Green Timbers.

R. Chisholm: Today we have with us in the gallery Mr. Brouwer and 18 students from Chilliwack Christian School. Would the House make them most welcome.

T. Perry: Would members kindly join me in welcoming Julie Gardner and Dan Moore of Vancouver, who are two prominent activists for wilderness conservation in B.C. They are with us, watching the debates today.

K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of approximately 26 grade 3 students from Woodland Park Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, their teacher, Ms. Cathy March, and several parents. They are here to enjoy a day of fun in Victoria. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't think they are in the gallery right now, but students from Lloyd George Elementary School in Kamloops are touring the precincts today. I'd like to invite the House to help me make welcome about 35 grade 6 and grade 7 students and their teacher, Mr. Thomson.

D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make two brief introductions, if I may. The first, on your behalf, is of a group of students who are here from Horse Heaven Hill Middle School in Kennewick, Washington. They're here as part of a normal Legislative Assembly visit, and I would ask my colleagues to please make all of them welcome.

While I'm on my feet, I would also ask my colleagues to join me in making welcome two of my constituents. Tom and Jean Nicoll are visiting with us today, and over lunch with them I discovered how small the world is. Unbeknownst to me, Tom Nicoll's daughter, Brenda Adkins, was a student of mine at Malaspina College some years ago, so indirectly I would like to extend a welcome to her, too. I hope you will join me in making them all welcome.

G. Brewin: In the gallery somewhere this afternoon is my daughter, Gillian Brewin, who is on home-stay from Namibia. She is accompanied by my granddaughter, Danielle Brewin Graham, who is 7 -- nearly 8. Would the House please make them welcome, wherever they are.

H. Lali: Visiting us today in the gallery are 37 grade 7 students from C. E. Barry Intermediate School in Hope, with their teacher, Ms. K. Warner. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to make welcome Jacqueline Versaevel, who is visiting today. She was previously with Pacific Public Affairs Ltd., and I know she will be a policy analyst in this province again. Welcome.

F. Gingell: Visiting with us in the precincts today are 35 children in grades 3, 4 and 5 from English Bluff Elementary School. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION OF JASON GAMACHE CASE

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to inform the hon. members of the results of an investigation into the handling of the case of Jason Gamache by the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. Jason Gamache was convicted of the murder of six-year-old Dawn Shaw of Courtenay. At the time of the murder, Jason Gamache was a young offender. He was on probation and was being supervised by the corrections branch. He was receiving therapy designed for sex offenders.

I have been deeply troubled by the brutality and senselessness of the crime that took the life of Dawn Shaw. Her tragic death, and the suffering of her family, friends and the people of her community, affected all British Columbians. As we strive to understand the circumstances that led to her death, I will do everything in my power to minimize the risk of the recurrence of such a crime.

On April 14, 1994, I confirmed in this House that I had asked Deputy Minister Maureen Maloney to conduct an investigation into the case. I asked that the investigation include recommendations for changes to our corrections system to protect other British Columbia families from the horror experienced by the Shaw family and their community. To ensure that the investigation was conducted impartially, Deputy Minister Maloney engaged Ms. Barbara Fisher to investigate the case. Ms. Fisher is a lawyer and former general counsel and director of the Vancouver office of the ombudsman. Ms. Fisher interviewed the key people involved and arrived at her independent conclusions. I wish to thank Ms. Fisher for her report and its recommendations. I will be asking leave to table the unedited report in this House today. Last night Deputy Minister Maureen Maloney met with the Shaw family to give them a copy of the report. She discussed it and other issues arising from the case with them.

[2:15]

I have instructed the corrections branch to implement all of Ms. Fisher's recommendations. Ms. Fisher reached five main conclusions regarding the supervision of Jason Gamache: (1) probation officers' workloads were so heavy that probation officers could not meet the public's expectations in supervising sex offenders; (2) provincial policies to guide probation officers who supervise sex offenders were inadequate; (3) there needed to be more information-sharing in the community; (4) probation officers 

[ Page 11718 ]

who supervised young sexual offenders needed more training; and (5) not enough consideration was given to the living arrangements of convicted young sex offenders.

The corrections branch is taking the following actions in response to Ms. Fisher's conclusions. First, the workload of probation officers who supervise young sex offenders will be reduced to allow them to provide the necessary level of supervision for these high-risk offenders. In her report, Ms. Fisher confirms what the government had already recognized. The responsibilities of probation officers are increasingly onerous. Not only has the number of cases risen in recent years, the nature of those cases has changed too. More offenders require more careful supervision and control. In response to this development, the government added $1.2 million in this year's budget for 20 new probation officers. They are being trained now. Some have finished their training and are on the job. The rest will be on the job by the end of the year. However, Ms. Fisher's report makes it clear that even these new resources are not enough, particularly for young sex offenders who require intensified supervision. Probation officers' caseloads will be reorganized to ensure that staff resources are concentrated in this area of high risk.

Second, I have asked the corrections branch to develop and implement within 90 days a provincewide policy for supervising young sex offenders. This policy will give clear guidance to probation officers and outline detailed standards of supervision, including home visits.

Third, the corrections branch will ensure that probation officers across the province notify key people regularly and consistently about young sex offenders present in their community. This policy is being implemented immediately and includes the essential requirement that, in all cases, probation officers have regular contact with therapists treating sex offenders on probation. British Columbia has strongly advocated changing the federal Young Offenders Act to allow for expanded notification. The federal government's recently announced amendments to the act will help us notify people in the community who need to know about the presence of young sex offenders.

Fourth, Ms. Fisher recommends more training for probation officers who supervise sex offenders. The training program is being enhanced now. All staff are receiving basic training in managing sex offenders. Only probation officers who complete training in this specialized field will be responsible for sex offenders.

Fifth, probation officers will be making home visits in all cases and assessing the suitability of the home. Ms. Fisher writes in her report: "Supervision and treatment, no matter how proactive, cannot eliminate all risks...." What we can do is reduce the risks. The actions I have announced today are part of a series of initiatives designed to do more to make our communities safer. No actions, no investigation and no report can return Dawn Shaw to her family. We must all work now to ensure other families do not have to face this horror.

Hon. Speaker, I now ask leave to table Barbara Fisher's Report on the Process and Procedure Followed in Supervising Jason Karl Gamache (November 1991-December 1992).

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: Again, I thank the Attorney General for the advance statement and the briefing that he kindly offered the opposition earlier today. I can fully appreciate the difficulty that the Attorney General had in releasing this report today and the comments that he's made.

On April 14, I put the following question to the Attorney General: "Why is it, in this unfortunate Gamache case, that a convicted sex offender on probation was living across the street from a family, was associating with that child and other young children, and the public had no knowledge of it?" The Attorney General, of course -- that day, in fact -- agreed to investigate it, which he has now done. The House has seen the tabled report and heard his comments.

My question on April 14 followed by one day the tabling of the Danny Perrault report in this House by the Attorney General. As I described it when I led into the estimates on April 14, the previous day was not a happy day for the Attorney General's ministry. I would suggest, unfortunately or otherwise, that it's not getting any happier. We now see the ongoing Perrault enquiry, the investigation into the Gossage case, the horrendous backlog of cases in both our criminal and civil courts, and the dubious experiment with legal aid -- just to name a few.

I'm sure the public at least welcomes some of the recommendations in this report. I will comment on one thing that is disturbing to me, and I'm sure disturbing to the people in the Comox community if nowhere else: there are three separate references in this report to where the RCMP in the Comox-Courtenay area were not notified at any time that Jason Gamache was living in that community. In fact, they did not know about it until the unfortunate events of October 24, 1992. The Attorney General and Barbara Fisher have commented on that issue, but that's one thing that came out of the report that I wish to put on the record.

What we are really dealing with as the overall theme is public confidence and public safety. To demonstrate that, I have in my hand an ad that is currently running in the Langley Teachers' Association newsletter. This is advertising for members of the community to come forward as host families for the placement of young adolescents. For young adolescents, read young offenders. Unfortunately, the words "young offenders" do not appear in this ad. This is a program that is sponsored by the Focus Foundation of British Columbia.

The point I'm making is that the public has to be notified. The public needs knowledge in advance as to how young offenders are being dealt with in their communities. Of course, as I've commented, the issue is public safety and public confidence. I just cite that and put on the record that there are ongoing problems. I can appreciate that the Attorney General does not have an easy job, but he has a very responsible job. What is clearly missing, as we are continually and daily learning from the Perrault inquiry, is public confidence and public safety.

Have we learned from Gamache? Yes, of course we have. We do have this report and a series of hopefully effective recommendations that will be put in place. But whether public confidence and public safety will be honoured and respected remains to be seen.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister on the action that he took to initiate this investigation and report. Secondly, I want to congratulate him for moving quickly to act on all of the recommendations made in the report. Dawn Shaw's death was indeed a tragic and heartbreaking event. Both federal and provincial governments have an obligation to ensure that we do everything in our power to prevent similar events in the future.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this report goes far enough. It only deals with young sexual offenders while they are on probation; the need goes beyond that. We need a national sex offenders registry that can ensure appropriate levels of 

[ Page 11719 ]

disclosure for all offenders of all ages, regardless of whether they're on probation. I'm disappointed that this report doesn't make a recommendation in that regard. The report could have moved that forward -- something that's under consideration now in a White Paper released in Ottawa that at least deals with young offenders. I want to urge the minister today, as I've done before, to press the federal Minister of Justice to establish an appropriate and adequate national sexual offenders registry. This case points up once again just how critical that issue is.

I'd like to conclude by extending, on behalf of our caucus, our sincere condolences to the Shaw family and to the friends, relatives and neighbours. I trust that this action and future actions by the government will provide comfort in some small measure to the family that these events do trigger actions and that governments do respond.

G. Wilson: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: In a manner similar to my colleague, the House Leader of the Reform Party, we first of all must pass on condolences to the Shaw family. We do congratulate the Attorney General for taking the measures he has.

But there's more to this issue than is contained in the report. We have in Powell River right now, for example, an issue where a sentence of two years probation was passed for a very similar instance. It has outraged the community and shocked the prosecutor that such a simple sentence would be passed on an individual convicted of sexual offences.

The shock waves that radiate throughout the community when these kinds of actions are taken signal to us that we must start to look very seriously at the law with respect to providing adequate and proper sentencing in its initial stages. Second, we must look at probation and the consequences of probation for those offenders. It is sad that we often see repeat offences by people who have not undergone rehabilitation -- people who are still and will continue to be a danger to society.

[2:30]

I applaud the Attorney General for the initiatives undertaken so far. I don't think it goes far enough. We would echo the comments made by the House Leader of the Reform Party. It is time for a national registry. It is time that all legislative assemblies across this country took strong action on these questions. We should take the question of youth out of sexual offences, and we should pass legislation that will affect all offenders, regardless of their age.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, when the Premier was pressed about the need for a public inquiry into the NDP's possible involvement in criminal activities in Nanaimo, he said:

"The best information I have is that charitable moneys were involved in charities and not political donations. I have taken the word of the provincial secretary and the treasury people at our party headquarters that there were no charitable funds coming over for political purposes."

I have in my hand copies of the financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society for the years 1988 to 1991, and they list thousands of dollars as expenses under the heading of "Politics." Will the Premier agree that this direct and indisputable link to criminal activities in the Nanaimo area with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society warrants not only an independent audit but a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said yesterday, I am going to respect the due process that is taking place before the courts right now. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearings and appeal procedure, I would hope that the special prosecutor would be prepared to release his report. When we see what his report has to say, we will then have the necessary information to see where there may be gaps or questions. At that time I would be prepared to consider the question that has been put to me.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?

G. Farrell-Collins: In the last two years the Premier hasn't even tried to find out if money came to his own political party. He had the opportunity; he just had to ask. And he hasn't even tried to find out.

Let's look at the things this government thinks...

The Speaker: Your question?

G. Farrell-Collins: ...are appropriate for a full public inquiry.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please put your question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, when the New Democrats were in opposition, they asked for public inquiries into giving a community grant to a recycling company owned by a campaign manager, into the granting of a pub licence to a friend of the former Premier; and into giving, in an attempt to sell personal property, a business card to someone who was presenting to cabinet. This is ten times -- a hundred times -- worse.

The Speaker: Your question?

G. Farrell-Collins: The public wants to know if the New Democratic Party was involved in fundraising activities that were criminal. Will the Premier commit to a full, independent public inquiry that will take place, if he wants, after the appeal process has taken place? Will he commit to that inquiry today?

The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental?

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know how much clearer it has to get for the Premier. The fundraising arm of the NDP, while he was leader of the party, committed a crime -- didn't break some rules, hon. Speaker, but committed a crime. They stole money from charities, including one that was run by a nun for the benefit of handicapped children. In the history of this province, we haven't seen anything so disgraceful, so despicable...

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...and so sleazy, I might add, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. member....

[ Page 11720 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: What will it take for the Premier to call a full, independent public inquiry into the criminal activities of the fundraising arm of the New Democratic Party?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I have said that New Democrats are dismayed at the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the besmirching of the reputation of one of the great movements in this country. I have said a number of times that when I first became aware of this matter two years ago, when this matter became something for the special prosecutor to investigate, I instructed the provincial secretary to sever any ties, if there were any, between the New Democratic Party of British Columbia and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. That matter is now before the courts. I have repeated today what I said yesterday: I have requested an audit of this whole matter; the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party is seeing that that audit is undertaken by an accounting firm that has no ties in any way to the New Democratic Party; and that audit will be made public. I've also said that I am open and would encourage the special prosecutor to release his report at the appropriate time: when the proceedings that are taking place right now are concluded.

J. Dalton: We'll try and get some more information out of the Premier. Yesterday the Premier said that his best information was that there was no mixing of charitable funds and politics. He also said yes to an audit and then backed down and said that he would seek clarification on that item. The public wants and needs to know how much money was stolen from charities and put into NDP coffers. Will the Premier launch today a full, independent inquiry that will include a forensic audit of the NDP and groups linked to this criminal activity?

The Speaker: Supplemental question, hon. member.

J. Dalton: It's unfortunate that the public is not getting the answers that it needs and deserves.

Thousands of dollars of stolen charity money went into politics, and that is without question. You can bet the farm that Dave Stupich didn't give that money to the Socreds. This NDP government was elected with stolen money obtained through criminal activity, and that has been proven.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Hon. member, the Chair has attempted to be fair in allowing the opposition to canvass a matter that quite technically is not under the purview of a minister of the executive council. These are technical realities, hon. members. However, it is quite clear that this is a matter that has significance to the political process, as a matter of fact. I do not hesitate to say to members that you should canvass the matter as long as you respect what is in order and what is out of order. Your comments that impute improper motives on the part of the government are strictly out of order. I would ask you to canvass the matter with respect to the limits of the House.

Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling, and I appreciate the fact that we are getting at least some information through the Premier.

The Premier is clearly responsible for this kind of activity, so I am asking the Premier: will he finally do the right thing and give back this money that was taken -- if you like to put it kindly -- from charities built by the NDP?

FEDERAL OPEN SKIES POLICY AND PROTECTION OF SMALL B.C. AIRLINES

G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier. Currently, the federal government is engaged in a new policy which they dub the Open Skies policy, with the intention of looking after major airlines -- Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. That policy, it seems, is also going to have the effect of opening up British Columbia to operators of small airlines from the state of Washington. They will be able to come in, service coastal British Columbia with float operations into many communities that are dependent on float operators, and put out of business many of the small operators currently licensed in British Columbia. Would the Premier tell us: what is he doing, in his role with either the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Transport, to look after the interests of small airline operators who are dependent on having their licences protected in the province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Transportation and Highways is not here today. I can say to the hon. member that I will be having discussions with the federal Minister of Transport about expanding the activities of international carriers out of British Columbia into Asia, the United States and other centres. This is a matter of importance to the smaller regional carriers that the member has just mentioned to me in his question. I certainly will be putting that question to the minister when I talk to him in the near future.

REFERENDUM ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. A few days ago, the Premier said he wanted to push for zero tolerance on violent crime. To that end, would the Premier support and endorse a provincial referendum on capital punishment? Is that part of his strategy for zero tolerance on violent crime?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two approaches that we all should be taking in British Columbia. One is to try and prevent crime from happening in the first place, dealing with the root causes of crime at the community, family and individual level. A series of initiatives has been undertaken by our government, spearheaded by the Attorney General, to do just that.

A second approach is through CLEU, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit that was started by the 1972-75 New Democratic government to target the most violent and vicious criminals in this province for apprehension, to be brought to trial, convicted and sent to jail for very longs periods of time. The member has asked a question about an issue that is important to British Columbians, and that is violent and vicious criminals. Actions are being taken by this government in terms of prevention and apprehension.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I believe that British Columbians would welcome an opportunity to express their opinions on the issue of capital punishment. I believe that the province has an obligation to provide lawmakers across this country with an opportunity to know what British Columbians stand for on this issue. Would the Premier support a referendum on capital punishment and put one before British Columbians at the next opportunity?

[ Page 11721 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, that is a matter of future policy. I also think that there are two separate questions. One is whether you believe capital punishment is going to stop violent criminals and violent crime. I can tell you, though, that this government has a zero tolerance policy for violence against our citizens. In two different and very important ways, we are taking measures to deal with the large criminal rings that are intimidating, threatening and harming our citizens and to divert particularly young people, or people who are angry toward society, from that kind of behaviour.

NURSES' LABOUR DISPUTE WITH GVRD

L. Reid: My question today is to the Minister of Health. In the past week we have seen 800 community health care nurses on strike in this province. Today, that withdrawal of service is supposed to escalate. Today, people are staying in hospital longer because they know that post-operative care is not available in the community. The Minister of Health stated that he had reached an agreement with community nurses. What deal did he reach if community nurses are still not able to deliver services to British Columbians?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The province did, indeed, conclude an agreement with the BCNU, covering community nurses who are employees of this government. Nurses in the greater Vancouver area who are employees of the GVRD are currently involved in a labour dispute with their employer. I would hope that that employer and that union will be able to conclude a fair agreement, as we have been able to do with our employees.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: The Minister of Health is asking British Columbians to trust that community care will be there when they need it. When is a nurse not a nurse, hon. minister? On Friday alone, in Richmond, 53 patients needed community care. A caseload is only nine patients a day. You are asking British Columbians to trust that your new plan will provide those services, but it can't provide it today. You're rushing into community-based care. You cannot deliver on your promise. When is this minister going to deliver the kind of community care that this New Democrat government has promised to British Columbians?

[2:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Unfortunately, the Liberal critic continues to display a complete lack of knowledge of labour relations in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have reached a fair agreement with nurses employed by this government. I continue to think that a fair agreement will also be reached with the community nurses employed by municipalities in the lower mainland.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, we've heard the Premier suggest that his government has cut all ties with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. But I refer the Premier to count 31 of the search warrant, which alleges that the Nanaimo NDP Centre Association, also known as the Nanaimo NDP Association, between the dates of January 1, 1973, and August 12, 1992, at or near the city of Victoria, "did cause the British Columbia lotteries branch and the public gaming branch...to act upon forged documents, to wit financial statements, as if they were genuine...." My question is to the Minister of Government Services: what steps has he taken in the last two years to investigate this allegation in the search warrant?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I'll take that question on notice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the former Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 46.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 46; D. Lovick in the chair.

On the amendments to section 1 (continued).

The Chair: We are currently dealing with three amendments to section 1, which I gather are being dealt with concurrently. I'm not sure where the debate left off, so I will go to the member for Okanagan East to begin.

J. Tyabji: We had adjourned debate after introduction of the three amendments, which introduced definitions for abuse, harm and neglect. As I said to the minister, in the absence of definitions, there is some potential for discretion on the part of the director that could lead to problems in the family. I had said that I wanted to introduce some case studies later on, but I would like to introduce one here as an example of an interpretation of neglect or harm that was used to interfere and, basically, to apprehend a child in a family situation. I'm sure, after the example, the minister will appreciate why it's quite important to be specific in terms of the definitions.

In this case, we had a situation where some social workers had been advised by a medical doctor, who, for whatever reason, seemed to have interests.... Perhaps he was just misguided in his thinking, but the advice that he was giving the social workers would not have been borne out. He was alleging abuse and neglect by the parents of a young girl who lived a very normal life, and who did very well in school -- straight As and Bs. She was originally diagnosed as having a rare liver disorder, but did not need any medication for it. The parents had been treating the disorder with diet, and it had been very successful. Five years after her diagnosis she fell from her bicycle. After injuring herself, a doctor intervened with exploratory surgery and then prescribed a drug called prednisone. Some of the minister's staff may be familiar with this case, because it is one that came up.... 

[ Page 11722 ]

Prednisone could be described as an experimental drug at best. The family were quite upset after her treatment, because they weren't sure what it meant. It wasn't on religious grounds; it wasn't on a philosophical basis. But they watched their daughter's behaviour change under this experimental drug. Some of the side effects have been described as psychotic behaviour, suppression of the immune system -- there was a whole list. After a while, the daughter also started to display some physical problems, including a lump in her breast and some serious physical disorders -- her spleen had enlarged, and there was a problem with blood pressure. At that point the parents wanted to discontinue treatment. The doctor intervened and said that that would be considered as something that would harm the child, and the parents would be charged with neglect. It got to the point....

The case is fairly lengthy. There was also the intervention of Kari Simpson of the Citizens' Research Institute, who was there as an advocate for the family and had researched the situation and took the family's position. The Ministry of Social Services intervened to try to apprehend the child. The child was very emotionally traumatized by this; the parents were extremely upset. The situation goes on. There is at the end of it a happy ending, in that the ministry resolved not to apprehend the child. The child stayed with the family.

But the fact in this case is that a medical doctor advised the ministry that the child was in danger and had to be apprehended immediately. The ministry then acted, as they should in that instance, and went down to apprehend the child. They did not go beyond that to receive material evidence or a second opinion, because they acted within the mandate they were given at the time. Of course, in the end, notwithstanding the doctor's report, after a lot of pain and suffering on the part of the family and the child, the situation was resolved. Without a definition, safeguards and accountability in the bill, I think there is a lot of room for discretion. In this case, the harm and neglect.... It's very easy to allege neglect on the basis of a parent choosing not to administer medication. However, there are times when, in the best interests of the child, the parent will make that determination.

If a third party is going to allege neglect, the onus should be on the third party to have a definition within which that neglect is alleged. If there is going to be an allegation of harm, that harm should be defined so that the onus is on the person alleging harm to produce evidence of either physical harm or potentially criminal negligence. Those definitions have been introduced in this stage so that the rest of the bill can be dealt with in a much more specific manner and so that we don't have such wide discretion, because obviously the workers who are on the front line will act on the intent of the definition in the bill. In the absence of that, there is a wide range of discretion that in the long run could prove to be against the best interests of the child. I would advocate caution; that is why those amendments have been proposed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know how it often helps to examine particular cases to make a point. However, I must say that it has been my experience that a case taken out of context is very difficult to comment on. So I'm going to deal with the generalities of the point. I don't think the definition proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan East would have assisted in the particular circumstance. What would have assisted is section 29 of the bill, and I look forward to being able to debate that.

Amendments negatived on division.

The Chair: Given this hiatus, member, may I just say as gently as I can that we have spent in excess of two hours and 20 minutes on definitions. That's a very significant amount of time, and I think we have probably canvassed most of the areas. Certainly from what I saw earlier when I wasn't in the chair, much of what we were hearing had already been canvassed at some length. I'd just like to caution all members that as nearly as I can make out, most of the matters we seem to be raising under definitions are indeed going to be dealt with in particular sections of the act. With that caution, I will recognize the member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: The last definition I want to canvass -- and the last amendment I want to propose -- is the definition of a family conference. Although it is referred to in section 20, there is no definition of family conference. We see what a family conference is mandated to do when we get to section 20 -- which can be dealt with there -- but not what it is.

I have some confusion when reading this bill, and I have spent some time on it to understand the implications. For example, we don't know who participates in a family conference, how it's structured, who calls the meeting, how that's determined or any of those things, because it's not defined. I would propose an amendment to the bill in section 1 -- and this is the last of my amendments -- and I'm hoping that this is the intent; this is what I glean from the bill, and it's all I can find. I move that the definition of family conference be deleted, and that the following be added: "'family conference' means a mediated session convened at the request of the parent or the child for the purpose of resolving difficulties which have been identified by the child, the parent, or the director."

The purpose of that is the word "family," which is also not defined.... We have no definition for community, family or kinship -- these are all very nebulous terms -- and a family conference under section 20.... Because it doesn't limit the number of people who can attend, who can request a family conference, who can participate, how long it goes on or any mechanism for it, it's important to introduce the concept that a family conference is to assist the parent or the child who has been identified as having a difficulty. As the second part of the amendment says, whether that identity can be identified by the director.... The director could have had a complaint registered and after an investigation find that there is reason to have a family conference. It could be brought about by the child making a request saying that there's a problem, in which case they convene a family conference -- or the parent, if the parent needs some assistance. Beyond those three parties it doesn't seem to me, for the intent of the bill, that a family conference would be warranted -- at least, as I read it.

[3:00]

Could the minister provide some direction on this? I think the amendment does clear it up. If a definition can be provided for the record -- other than convening it without a definition -- that would be most useful for the debate.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The definition of family conference refers to section 20 -- which we will have an opportunity to debate -- where the intent of the family conference is clear. In this legislature we understand the difference between legislation, regulation, policy and practice. Let me advise hon. members that in a business as complex as the one that our ministry deals with we cannot include everything in legislation. That would prevent us from keeping with the times and keeping up with changes in resources. Much of 

[ Page 11723 ]

what is being discussed now is a matter of policy. I can reassure the hon. member that the regulation will provide a quick process. It will name the participants and how the family conference is conducted. I can also advise that there is a need to remain flexible in this process to ensure its success.

J. Tyabji: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment. Notwithstanding regulations and policy, all that we would have to go on today is anything that might currently exist. Now we have a dramatically different piece of legislation in front of us. Obviously the regulations and policy will be changed accordingly. We don't know what regulations will accompany this legislation, and the minister still hasn't given us much of an idea about who will initiate or participate in a family conference.

The biggest concern, especially given the language of the bill, is that someone other than the parties directly related to the issue at hand will be able to interfere in the integrity of the family to have self-determination. That, of course, goes to the heart of the bill: when is a family allowed to have self-determination and at what point can the state intervene? Obviously the state intervenes when the child's health is in danger or the child is in danger. But in terms of a family conference, if the issue is not one of a pressing need for immediate intervention for access or custody -- we are talking about a family conference where we're going to talk about everything to try to resolve something -- it should be initiated by the parties directly involved in the issue. If they are not directly involved in the issue they really don't have any business talking at a family conference. That's why that's in there. Maybe the minister can reassure us that there won't be third parties or people other than the parent or the child -- or perhaps the director -- interfering with the family's integrity.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is appropriate discussion for section 20. Before we get to section 20, let me reassure the hon. member for Okanagan East that it is our intent to widely consult with the community and the stakeholders to design a good process that is based on a practice conducted in many other jurisdictions with a great deal of success; we want to build upon that success in other jurisdictions. We can certainly explore options under section 20 as well.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Okanagan East, perhaps I could give members who have other duties the opportunity to depart this place to attend to those duties.

May I also offer my customary cautionary note? The customary cautionary note has to do with the fact that we are now on what in this bill is called guiding principles, which in other bills is frequently referred to as the purposes section. I would just remind everybody that we have had the second reading debate. This House has voted on the principles of the bill, and the amount of time we therefore need to give to this particular section -- it seems to me, logically and reasonably -- ought to be limited. I would ask members to please be guided by that before the debate on section 2 begins. Having said that, I now recognize with alacrity the member for Okanagan East.

On section 2.

J. Tyabji: I have a question of the Chair on his comments: would a day or two be too long on this section, or is that...?

Recognizing that we've had second reading, some of the questions that we have for the minister -- and I have one amendment for this section.... I find that in this section we have the term "kinship ties," which is not defined. Could the minister provide some direction as to what a kinship tie is from her ministry's perspective?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We were actually going to try to provide a lengthy academic dissertation on it, but I'm overruling the staff. I'm just going to go with the plain face of the meaning, which is the connection of a child to her or his extended family.

[3:15]

J. Tyabji: The minister said it's the connection of the child to the extended family. For the purposes of this bill, then, is a kinship tie going to be one of the parameters through which they determine where the child should be -- on the basis of the extended family? I'm not sure -- just so the minister understands my question -- if a kinship tie is a tie that exists because of biology or practice?

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Or marriage?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me deal with the marriage issue first. The children covered by this act are not married. Your tie as a child is through your parents; you're not married yourself. Anyway, I'll seek clarification on that, hon. Chair.

What we are inserting in this act as a guiding principle is that your kin are people who surround you as your family, your extended family, those who are in your circle of support who share your culture and background and are part of your extended family.

Let me try and presuppose what the hon. member means by marriage. If that means what we sometimes refer to as step-relations or a blended family, I would say yes.

J. Tyabji: Just a point of clarification. If we go back to the basis of the question, when the minister explained kinship.... I understand what she's saying. When she talks about the extended family, I'm not sure whether that is something determined by biology. When I asked that, I meant that we have a lot of references that are racially tied. Would someone be defined as having kinship on the basis of their biological ties, or would it be, as most people would think of kinship, on the basis of someone who, by practice, 

[ Page 11724 ]

has been around the child for much of the child's life and is part of that child's environment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think we're having a continuation of the discussion we had this morning about what is in the best interests of the child and how kinship relates to this.

Let me try this from a different angle, with regard to what this guiding principle is. It is saying that wherever a child's interests have to be determined according to this act, we are going to do that giving consideration to the child's kinship ties -- whether that's biological, the community from which the child comes or the extended family. I heard from many families with an ethnic background different from mine, and they said to me that the most important factor in their child's life is the child's extended family. It's from that point of view. But if anyone has concerns that the kinship ties to the aboriginal community will prevail over the best interests of the child or perhaps one of the biological parents, the answer to that is simply that they won't.

V. Anderson: I want to thank the minister and her staff for the three hours of briefing that we were able to have and benefit from. If I do not ask a lot of questions, it's because I previously got the clarifications I wanted, and I understood them. I want to thank the minister for that and put it on the record that we have had that opportunity.

The kinship issue, I think, is very important, and it is one that the community has raised with me. I just want to clarify my understanding of it. I have had grandparents coming to me who, under the present system, have had difficulty interacting with their grandchildren. It seems to me that under legal definitions, kinship would normally be legal kinship. To go beyond that would have to be justified, or you'd have to stretch it. Normally it would be legal kinship with an extended-family member who has some legal relationship. Normally that would be the first point any court would consider in trying to work it through. Grandparents, cousins and aunts would therefore have an opportunity to be related if that was in the best interests of the child. If I rightly understand the flow of the act, they would have a priority in consideration over non-kinship persons.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Thank you.

J. Tyabji: Section 2(f) says "the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved...." I'm sure it's no surprise to the minister, then, that this causes some difficulty to the Alliance members. I'll try to be brief, so I'll quickly introduce an amendment, and we can go through the motions of defeating it. Then we can move on to the next amendment and defeat that one too.

I move that section 2(f) be amended to read that "the cultural identity of children is an important aspect of their ongoing education...." I move that amendment -- rather than it reading "the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved" -- so we recognize that all children's cultural identity is very important to their ongoing education as human beings. In that respect, we don't identify aboriginal children as any different from others. All cultures are equally important.

The Chair: The intent of the amendment is to replace the existing section 2(f) with the new (f) and take away the specific reference to aboriginal children and their cultural heritage. Am I correct?

J. Tyabji: The purpose of that is that families and cultures obviously self-determine. The phrase "should be preserved" is mandating preservation, which we believe is artificiality built into the bill similar to what we see in Quebec, where they've been mandating and legislating French language and culture. To that extent we recognize the educational process rather than the legislation.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: I did have another amendment to this section, but since I can't find it right now, I would like to ask some questions of the minister specific to this. This is the first time we've hit a section where the words "abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm" are used without definition in the definition section. On the record, could the minister provide the guidelines through which the director will be making that determination? Is that going to come out in regulation or policy?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's not under the definition; that's contained in section 13 of the legislation.

J. Tyabji: Section 2(g) says "decisions relating to children should be made and implemented in a timely manner." It's my understanding that the bill more or less lays out the timely manner. Is that what this is in reference to? Or is there going to be further regulation on that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All of us who are parents know that our children have different concepts of time than we do. One of the things we were very cognizant of in drafting this legislation is that when we apply adult time to decisions, it has an effect on the development of children. We're trying here not only to address the court timeliness very clearly specified in the legislation, but to have a guiding principle that timeliness is of the utmost importance in any decisions around children, including provision of service, to enhance a child's development rather than hinder it through delay.

Section 2 approved on division.

On section 3.

G. Wilson: We've actually canvassed earlier, under the definitions, part of what I wanted to ask under section 3. So I don't know that we need to repeat it, with the exception of one question with respect to community involvement. This is something that I think we would support if.... And that's why we were talking about the definition of community.

I wonder if this act takes into account that a wide range of community services are already available in many communities and that those community services are often financed or provided for through various non-profit associations and church groups -- a whole series of different agencies -- that are not directly mandated, although they may have, in part, received funding from the Ministry of Social Services. With respect to service delivery principles, I wonder whether or not it's intended, if the community should be involved, that there be a proposition to directly mandate some of those community associations and services with respect to the provision of services through this act -- i.e., I'm thinking about community service associations in particular.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is quite right: there is a wide range of excellent community organizations and service agencies that work in partnership with our ministry. 

[ Page 11725 ]

The role, advice and participation of those community agencies was a key recommendation that we received through our community panel report. The intent of this is that we work closely with community agencies that are outside our direct government mandate, although we do provide hundreds of agencies with funding.

Those community agencies are obligated by law to participate in this act, just as each and every one of us in this room is. But we are going to make sure that the community agencies are involved in the implementation of this act. We will assist in training, with agencies, in the transition to the new act, although I must also tell you that many community agencies are in front of us and are already implementing the principles of this act. We have 20 social workers throughout the province, called community development workers, who will assist those agencies with the transition in accepting and implementing this act.

G. Wilson: That is actually an encouraging response, and it's one that I think we're interested in. Section 3(b) states: "...aboriginal people should be involved in the planning and delivery of services to aboriginal families and their children." We notice the following heading in a press release of May 31, 1994, by this ministry: "The Nicola Valley Bands Take Back Child Welfare Responsibilities." Such an agreement appears to already have been signed, and it directly addresses this. It states: "This agreement is in keeping with our proposed new family and child services legislation." That is this legislation. With respect to the service delivery principles section.... In this press release it suggests that within three years the band will have "full delegated authority" in control over areas such as the investigation of child abuse reports and taking children into care. Is it intended, then, that this section of the bill is going to essentially allow that the principles for delivery will be expanded to allow this government to fully delegate authority under this act, as it seems to have done in the agreement that has been made with the Nicola Valley bands?

Hon. Chair, I'd like to just take an opportunity to welcome a number of students who are in the gallery today. I think it's appropriate that we have a lot of young people listening to legislation on children, youth and young families. This bill will directly affect them, I'm sure, and probably their children. Could we take an opportunity to welcome those students, and then I would look forward to the minister's response.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The legislation will provide for agreements with aboriginal communities for the provision of services and the designation of aboriginal directors. We'll cover that under section 91, in the upcoming debate. Section 91 will allow for the potential to assume full responsibility for administering and enforcing all aspects of this act.

[3:30]

J. Tyabji: I'd like to introduce an amendment to section 3(b). I'm sure it's no surprise to the minister that the Alliance has problems with section 3(b) because it specifically singles out aboriginal people. Yet section 3(c) says: "...services should be planned and provided in ways that are sensitive to the needs and the cultural, racial and religious heritage of those receiving the services." Clause (c) would include aboriginal people. I'm sure the minister could appreciate that if section 3(b) read "Chinese people" or "East Indian people" or "Italian people," we would consider that racist. The Alliance believes that this is racist. We would amend section 3 to delete clause (b).

The Chair: I thank the member for sharing her amendment with the table.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister please tell us to what extent her ministry is currently working with aboriginal people in setting up, under clause (b), planning and delivery of services to the aboriginal community separate from the rest of the community?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Nothing is occurring under this bill, because it is not yet an act. But we now have seven agreements with aboriginal communities, each with various levels of delegation of responsibility, and we are in discussions with three more aboriginal communities.

Section 3 approved on division.

On section 4.

J. Tyabji: To what extent will there be companion regulations or policy on the best interests of the child?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be no regulations. This section speaks for itself.

J. Tyabji: Section 4(1)(b), which talks about the best interests of the child, says that one of the factors will be "the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development." Who will that be determined by? What are the criteria to determine that in the absence of regulations?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The courts.

G. Wilson: That causes a good deal of concern. It's the view of the Alliance that the discretionary powers of a judge is often not the best way to determine the emotional needs and development levels of a child.

Having said that, I just have a couple of questions on section 4(2). It says: "If the child is an aboriginal child, the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity must be considered in determining the child's best interests." We've canvassed this already. I just want to ask the minister how that's different from section 4(1)(e), which talks about "the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage...." It seems to me that you've said, in relation to all children, that subsection (1)(e) looks after "the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage"; and then you've introduced a special section which says that if, on the other hand, it's an aboriginal child, "the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity must be considered in determining the child's best interest." I'm not certain why you need that additional caveat, given that it's already covered under subsection (1)(e).

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have canvassed this already, but let me reiterate. Section 4(2) is needed in order to reverse what has occurred in the past, in that the best interest of an aboriginal child, as determined by the courts, has been to remove that aboriginal child from his or her home into a non-aboriginal home. As I've said throughout the debate this morning, 30 percent of the children who are removed from homes each and every year are aboriginal children. This is to correct that situation.

[ Page 11726 ]

G. Wilson: With respect, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction. We just talked about who determines the physical and emotional needs and level of development, and the minister said it should be the courts. Then the minister said that historically the courts haven't done a very good job, especially with respect to aboriginal children; and we would agree. But it is important for us in a society, wherever possible, to eliminate language that is discriminatory in nature, and this is discriminatory language. It says that an aboriginal child will be treated in a manner different from other children; that is implicit in the legislation.

I would move an amendment to this section that would simply delete subsection (2), as I believe it is adequately covered under subsection (4)(1)(e).

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Under the current legislation, the courts had no guidance or direction on what the best interest of the child was. This gives the courts direction, and subsection 4(2) gives the courts a factor that they must take into consideration now. When it was left to the discretion of the courts, the courts chose to completely ignore the best interest of the child, in terms of aboriginal children within their communities.

G. Wilson: Very quickly in defence of the amendment -- and then we can move to a vote on it -- that's clearly why we don't think the court is the best area for the decision to be made. Second, the problem is that it signals to a judge -- who is reviewing what is in the best interest of a child on the basis of this legislation -- that if a non-aboriginal child is in front of that judge, the following criteria are to occur.... But if it is an aboriginal child, that judge is going to be referred to a specific section of this bill that provides specific guidance to the judge on that question. We are arguing that in a court of law, every child should be treated equally with every other child. In this society, if we start to build laws and regulations that are exclusive, different or special in nature and given to people on the basis of racial origin, no matter how good the intention -- and we believe it is well-intentioned -- it starts to create a tradition in jurisprudence that I think is really dangerous. It leads us down a road that discriminates rather than removes discrimination between people, and that's why the amendment is important.

J. Tyabji: Obviously I am rising in support of the amendment. Although this subsection is well-intentioned, I see it to be racist. Rather than reducing discrimination in jurisprudence, I think it continues a tradition of racism. In the past there has been discrimination against aboriginal people that has worked against the best interests of the child. Now we are going to go the other way by differentiating -- continuing the segregation in law. Ideologically, that's something that we can't support. The minister said it on the amendment, so I will raise it in the amendment: the courts don't always decide in the child's best interests, so they have put this clause in the bill. She has also said that the place in which the best interests of the child will be determined will be the courts.

I have a desk loaded with cases where the best interests of children in the initial stages had to be appealed because the decision was that far removed from the children's best interests. The courts often seek guidance from people who go into the homes, study the homes and study the psychological impact. Since we're on this section and the minister has raised in this amendment that the courts don't always decide in the child's best interests, I would agree with that. I would also say, for the purposes of this bill, that the best interests of the child should be defined outside of the courts and should be more clearly defined within the bill so that the courts don't have to be the last decision-making level for the children.

On the amendment, I would very much support a deletion of all areas of the bill that segregate on the basis of race.

V. Anderson: I must rise and respond. I would vote against the amendment. I would also want to be very clear that I do not believe it is discriminatory or racial. I know that the hon. members in the Alliance do believe that any reference to aboriginal people should be deleted from the bill. I want to state quite clearly on my part that I don't agree with them, and I do not agree that it is either racial or discriminatory. It recognizes the historical reality of the country in which we live. It's no more racial than if we were recognizing the reality of citizenship of people from other countries.

We are here recognizing the historical reality of the first nations. It's a difficulty that we have to work through, which we have not worked through properly, and because we have difficulties in working it through does not mean that we're being discriminatory in doing so. It's a reality, and it's my understanding that the majority of the people of our province recognize that. The courts have recognized that in many ways already. Rather than having it declared discriminatory and racial again and again, I want to stand on record as not agreeing with the members of the Alliance in their interpretation of the reasons for this particular presentation in this bill.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I would speak in favour of the amendment. It seems to me that subsection (1)(e), as it is outlined, provides for the best interests of the child on the basis of "cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage." The effect of subsection (2) seems to me to put far more emphasis on cultural and therefore less emphasis on racial, linguistic and religious heritage. If one assumes that a judge or other official, looking at this bill, would read the sections differently in the case of an aboriginal child, it would say to the judge that the issue of critical importance is cultural.

I would argue that racial and linguistic considerations, particularly, might be every bit as important for an aboriginal child as another ethnic child, and I really don't believe that subsection (2) serves aboriginal people well. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether there is some lobby, or whether, as part of some very genuine consultation, aboriginal people have asked for this kind of separate section to deal with issues around their community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand that when you have a party of four, it's difficult to cover all the bases in the House. We have covered this ground, though. Let me reassure you that after two years of consultation and a report that we can make available to you called "Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nation...." That extensive consultation with the aboriginal community is the lobby. It's not a lobby; it's a genuine outcry to redress the wrongs that have occurred in the past. I also made available to the House the statistic that 30 percent of the children that are apprehended, or removed from their homes, in this province are aboriginal children, whereas their population base is about 4 or 5 percent -- as 

[ Page 11727 ]

the hon. member, who used to be the minister responsible, well knows.

J. Weisgerber: My comments are indeed aimed very much at trying to ensure that all children have the very best treatment that they can under this legislation. It's unfortunate that the minister feels she has to be defensive about this. I really believe that if there were, as part of some serious and well-intentioned consultation with aboriginal communities, a specific request, and if the minister would identify that for us, then we would perhaps be willing to move forward. But I suspect that this has been drafted....

Hon. J. MacPhail: We just did.

J. Weisgerber: Well, if the minister suggests to me.... She held up a rather thick document that outlines the consultation process. But I must say.... We won't prolong it. I'll vote against the section and with the amendment because -- and I want to make sure that the minister understands -- it's in the best interests of all children, particularly aboriginal children, that their cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritages all be considered and that the courts are not prejudiced by this subsection (2), which says that the only real issue important for aboriginal children is culture.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: I have just a final comment before we take the vote. I believe, when you're drafting legislation that deals with matters of social consequence -- particularly when it talks about racial origin or cultural groups -- that you should be able to delete that word, replace it with any other group and have it acceptable. I suggest that if you took out those words "aboriginal child" and put in "East Indian child" or "Chinese-Canadian child" or -- not even Canadian -- "Chinese child," or if that child is of some other ethnic group, it clearly would not be seen as acceptable.

It strikes me that when we are moving ahead in our society as we are, we want to try to remove whatever legislation there is that discriminates on the basis of race. The Indian Act, for example, is a racist piece of legislation and needs to be thrown out of this country. We need to move forward to make sure that all Canadians are treated equally -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal. That's the goal. That is why we take such strong objection, right throughout this act, to the fact that this act seems to say there are two groups of people -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

We have a philosophical problem with it. We can agree to disagree, and I guess we will. We'll vote against it. You'll vote for it, and you have more people than we do and you'll win. But philosophically, we need to be drafting legislation that doesn't isolate or discriminate and that treats all people equally.

J. Tyabji: One reason we're spending some time on this section -- although there are pieces throughout the bill with similar references -- is that the best interest of the child obviously is the thread that weaves the bill together, and there is discrimination in this section that we would like to exclude.

I want to say, for the minister's sake, that I've had some interesting discussions with my son on this issue. I tried as hard as I could to explain to him why it would be relevant in a court of law, and how it could be that something over which he'd have no control -- which has no relevance in his daily life but is part of his DNA -- might one day have a dramatic impact on his life. He doesn't understand it. I can understand that he doesn't understand it, because frankly I don't understand it.

I've talked to many other aboriginal people who aren't that inclined to be segregated from the rest of the community. There's no question that there is leadership in the aboriginal community and first nations who are at the Treaty Commission table. But, as this minister knows, they're in the minority as far as the population goes. Once we start to define who is and is not an aboriginal, we're moving into a form of apartheid which in the nineties really is not acceptable.

That at least puts those comments on the record.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 4 approved on division.

D. Streifel: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: I have some students from Edwin S. Richards Elementary School in my community visiting in the gallery today. There are 60 of them altogether, in two groups. They're nice, quiet and well-behaved folks. I much appreciate having friends from home visit me when I'm here. They're led by Ms. Chandonnet. I bid the House make them welcome.

The Chair: I think we're still waiting for ministry staff, unless the member for Okanagan East wants to make an introduction as well.

J. Tyabji: I can always add something to that. Some of the comments in the House don't get on the record, but as the member for Mission-Kent was talking about how well-behaved and polite the students from his riding were, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was wondering why their MLA didn't behave the same way.

The Chair: I would suggest, member, that you may perceive that to be humorous, but it is rather inappropriate.

J. Tyabji: In that case, I'll go back to the bill.

[ Page 11728 ]

The Chair: I'm going to ask you to please take your seat until the minister returns, and then we can resume debate.

On section 5.

J. Tyabji: We don't have a problem with section 5 philosophically or in any other way.

In terms of termination of the agreement, we would propose an amendment to section 5. I'll start from there. Our discussion point for the section is that section 5 be amended to add a subsection (4) that would say: "The parent may terminate the agreement at any time if, in the opinion of the parent, the services of the director are no longer needed by the family."

[4:00]

In addition to the parent being the person who determines how the family operates -- in consultation with the child, obviously -- the reason for the termination clause is that, once getting into an agreement with the director and asking for that support and assistance, it's important for the parent to have the ability to end the agreement, in addition to the time lines that are given here. I would move that amendment.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this section, support services for families are not mandated services; they're voluntary services. Inherent in any agreement is the principle of law that says: if you make an agreement voluntarily, you can also unmake the agreement voluntarily. That's inherent in the law, and that's certainly the intent of the section. Any form that's drafted as a procedural matter will ensure that that principle is contained....

J. Tyabji: Section 5(3) is talking about maximum terms and then possible renewal, but that shouldn't mean that those should be the terms of the agreement. Can one party to the agreement opt out and then nullify the agreement?

The minister is nodding. I'll just put that on the record.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Tyabji: The same concern comes with section 6, but there is another one as well, and I'd like to introduce an amendment on that. The concern, of course, is for termination and whether the minister has assured us that there will be a termination. There is no mention of a maintenance schedule that the parent, if possible, would get into with the director. So I would propose that we add an amendment to subsection (5), which says: "The agreement must include the following...." and talks about the plan of care, informing the parent, and the parent's promise to maintain contact with the child. I propose that subsection (d) be added, saying that the agreement must include "a budget for care of the child, which should include a schedule of maintenance with, if possible, a contribution schedule by the parent."

The reason for a contribution schedule amendment would be.... As it is right now, the director obviously has the discretion to include that in the agreement. But even though the bill is fairly specific on some of the terms of the agreement, the bill doesn't say anything about a financial contribution by the parent when the parent hands over care of the child to the director. I would propose that amendment and look forward to the minister's response.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that the bill is complex and lengthy -- and there is absolutely no implied criticism with this whatsoever -- but the amendment is contained in section 97(2).

J. Tyabji: The minister said that those maintenance agreements and orders apply to this section? Okay, that's fine. I withdraw the amendment, then.

V. Anderson: I have an amendment to reword section 6(7) to make it agreeable with the rewording of the amendment in section 45. It's the exact wording as in 45; it just brings these together. So I would move it, hon. Chair.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent is acceptable, and I know we have to deal with your amendment. There is a problem in the wording of the hon. member's amendment in that it refers to orders. "Order" has a specific legal meaning, and in this section we are dealing with agreements, which has a different.... Let me suggest a friendly amendment to the amendment, changing wherever it says "order" to "agreement." We actually have wording written out here.

V. Anderson: I am in favour of the minister's motion, because I agree with her that it should have been "agreement" instead of "order." That was a mistake on our part.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved on division.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Tyabji: Rather than move an amendment, I am assuming that section 8 is the same as the other sections in terms of a termination clause. Would it be assumed that it would be terminated at any point where the person with whom the agreement is made withdraws?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That requires a two-part answer. On the face of it, the agreement can be terminated voluntarily, as we described earlier. Also, if the parent wants to terminate the agreement he or she can do so by just taking the child back.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister explain what a cultural or traditional responsibility toward a child is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It has been an interesting experience for me to understand how other cultures have an extended family -- and I am sorry that I don't. In my community the grandparent plays a very major role with my Chinese-Canadian neighbours. In other cultures that is a traditional role as well in terms of the upbringing of the kids. I 

[ Page 11729 ]

understand that the hon. member has direct experience. It's that kind of kinship relationship that we are addressing.

J. Tyabji: I would assume that cultural or traditional.... I am curious, because I can understand the relationship as the minister has described. Certainly in my mother's case that would be part of her world view that has continued into my experience, yet I don't think it could be considered cultural or traditional. For the purposes of this bill we're looking at the practice of that family, independent of an identifiable culture. Or is the minister saying there would have to be a culture through which that happens, other than what that family practice has been?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think I agree, but let me try to put it in my own words. Family practice may be based on a culture that isn't necessarily part of the general culture, and therefore it becomes a family practice as opposed to the culture of the day. But it has cultural origins and cultural roots, such as the one I described in terms of the Chinese-Canadian family.

J. Tyabji: That makes more sense to me. In my own case I'm very western, but we do have that in my house.

It appears to me that the intent of section 8 is to allow someone who has a cultural or traditional role in a child's life other than the parent to be someone with whom the director may make an agreement. So even though there isn't a court order, for example, identifying that person as having custody of the child, the child may have grown up and been involved with a grandparent, and therefore that person has a role to play.

I'd like to propose an amendment if for no other reason than to get the minister's comment and see if this has the same intent as this section -- and hopefully with the idea that the minister will adopt it. I think it might address the intent of this a little better and make sure that the parent's role is entrenched. Section 8(1) would be deleted and replaced with: "With written consent of the parent, and under the instruction of the parent, the director may make a written agreement with a person other than the parent who is (i) designated by the parent to the director, and (ii) has been given care of the child by the child's parent."

The reason for that amendment is that the parent is obviously the person who has the first responsibility for a child. If a parent has given that responsibility over, or if someone else has been taking care of the child, there should be recognition at some point that the parent delegated that to someone else. The way the section is worded causes some problem. It says "a person," rather than "a person who has a longstanding relationship with the child." We talk about a cultural or traditional responsibility, but we don't talk about a simple human relationship.

I find it interesting that in previous sections we've had reference to kinship, and although the heading says the "child's kin," there's no real reference to that in the language of this section. The section is fairly open to interpretation. It's the word "person" that causes some difficulty -- and the fact that there's no recognition on paper.

I would be worried, for example, that if the child is not necessarily in the care of someone by practice, but that person represents that such is the case, the parent has less say in it. Let's say there are two parents arguing over the care of a child, and that child has spent considerable time with one of their grandparents. There could be a misrepresentation. In that case, the director goes into a written agreement from someone who isn't the parent -- it may be the grandparent -- who is claiming to have a relationship that might not be there. There's no acknowledgment by the parent of the role that that person plays.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section is a voluntary section that presupposes that the parent is still the guardian. The agreement has already been made with the parent that they are asking for a third party voluntarily. In some circumstances it's where the parent has said that he or she cannot look after the child, and they're looking for third-party care.

J. Tyabji: Under section 8, even though the director has a written agreement with another person, would that agreement be negated by the parent coming in to take over care of the child? In what circumstances would a written agreement with a person supersede the parent's willingness to take over care of the child?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of the more than 5,000 children who come into our care, over half are by agreement. It's under circumstances where the child would otherwise be abandoned, and the parent understands that. It's to deal with circumstances where a parent has asked for a third party to care for her child. That's when this would come into play.

J. Tyabji: Would there be a circumstance wherein a written agreement with a person other than the parent would supersede the parent coming in to say that that parent wanted to have care of the child?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, not under this section; this is strictly a supportive section.

[4:15]

J. Tyabji: So these written agreements are for support to the person who is caring for the child, rather being than a written agreement wherein the care of the child is given over to the director. Is that correct?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The whole of part 2 is for support services to families to keep them together, or so that we have as little interference with them as possible. This particular section within that part is to allow us to make a relatively informal financial arrangement with the party who can support the family, without us having to perhaps play any greater role than that.

J. Tyabji: I guess there is some confusion because section 8 follows section 6, which is the voluntary care agreements where the director can take over the custody. It makes it sound as if on the one hand, there is the support for the family, and then there's voluntary care, where the child is given over; and then later on it talks about special needs and written agreements. It makes it sound as if the child can be handed over by a person other than the parent. The minister is assuring me that that is not the case, so that's very reassuring.

Amendment negatived.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 11730 ]

J. Weisgerber: There are a couple of areas I'd like to seek some clarification on. I assume that the intent of section 9(1)(b) is that the ministry will, where able, cause parents to accept financial responsibility for the support of a youth. Perhaps I will hear from the minister on that question first.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Every attempt will be made to reconcile the youth with the family, up to and including ensuring that the family can pay for the well-being of the youth. This section covers when alienation is complete and irreversible after every attempt has been made.

J. Weisgerber: I foresee the situation where a separation is irreparable but the family is very wealthy. Does the "able" section of the act come into play, and does the Crown say to that able parent: "Even though you're estranged from your youth, you have an obligation to look after their well-being, and we're going to ensure that you fulfil that obligation"?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The short answer to your question is yes, that's correct.

J. Weisgerber: The other clarification I'd like to seek is under subsection (7). I'm curious as to why a young person under 16 years of age who is married, a parent or expectant parent would be dealt with differently than another child who is 16 years of age or younger?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, when a youth has a child of her or his own, or is married, they have actually demonstrated a very strong move toward adulthood, and that's an indication that even if they're under 16....

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Physiological adulthood, anyway. That's why there's the inclusion of the exception for young parents who are under 16 -- including the mom.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to try and determine what those differences are. I'm assuming that this suggests that these young people under 16 years of age would be provided with separate housing and allowances, rather than being put into the care of another family or something similar. Perhaps the minister could give me a sense of what the situation would be with a very young person, say, 13 or 14 years old, who is pregnant. Does this act automatically entitle them to be treated as a youth simply on the basis that they are pregnant?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I reiterate -- and I understand that this is a change, so it's important that we're clear on it -- that this section will come into play as an available alternative only when every other avenue has been pursued to reunite the child with his or her family. When that break is so significant that there is no chance of reunification, we will have the alternative under section 9(7) to provide a pregnant teen, and perhaps the dad as well, with some alternatives to ensure that the new child isn't at risk. That may involve room and board or a group home. It may involve some sort of family support services regarding life skills, perhaps even training or parenting skills. It's to ensure that neither the child -- and what we in this House may assume is a child is, really, displaying adult behaviour -- nor the baby are at risk.

J. Weisgerber: I would like to determine whether the purpose of this section is to give the ministry the ability to handle with greater flexibility the sort of situation that might arise, or does it confer on young people certain rights? My concern would be that some young people, particularly young girls, are in very difficult situations they want to get out of. I would hope that we're not creating a situation that would set the stage for a young person to become pregnant and therefore have an opportunity to get out of an unhappy household situation and into a home of their own, even though they might be very young -- that that's not the effect of this legislation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The point is well taken. In fact, the intent is as described by you. It's an option that gives us that ability, if the circumstances suggest that that would be the only avenue available to assist the child. I also want to assure the members that this is only an option. There is also the legal ability for us to treat that youth as a child under other sections of the act.

G. Wilson: I have a straightforward legal question, I think. It has to do with the authority that the ministry has -- maybe I'm reading this incorrectly -- to bypass the courts, and it would appear that it does have here.... My concern is that a parent is liable for damage done by a youth who commits vandalism against property. If charges under the Young Offenders Act are put forward and set out under the agreement with the youth, does this allow the director to make an agreement that would re-establish the youth in a family? In light of the fact that there may be recommendations -- not a court order -- that come out of a probation order suggesting that the youth be removed.... In other words, which has authority? Who will be the authority in this case? I am thinking specifically of a case similar to this that happened in my own riding where the parents didn't want the child back because they couldn't control the child. They were saying to the court: "Please, we can't control this child. Don't reinstate the child in the family." The court took that into account and the probation order came down. I'm now wondering whether or not the youth would be able to go directly to the director and make an agreement that would counter or bypass that agreement.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If I'm not answering your question properly, we can pursue it further. If the parent refuses to maintain responsibility for a youth who comes out of custody, that youth is considered to be abandoned and the sections of the act for abandoned youth come into play. Or there is an opportunity for us to use this section if it seems like a viable alternative. But the key is that the youth is deemed to be abandoned at that point.

G. Wilson: Okay. So those concerns, then, would presumably be governed under a separate section which would deal with abandoned youth. But in the particular case I'm thinking about, there was a propensity toward arson and the parents just didn't feel that they wanted the responsibility. And this is a 16-year-old youth, so it's not like this person was unable to provide at least some rudimentary self-care. But the concern when looking at this is whether or not the youth would be able to make a direct agreement wherein the director might say: "In looking at that situation, we believe it's in the youth's best interest for the youth to go back to the family." I grant you that this is not going to be widespread, but it creates a certain amount of anxiety. In this particular instance I'm thinking of, the parents of this particular youth were elderly people who had children very late in life and found that they were unable to manage. The 

[ Page 11731 ]

court found that the parents still had a custodial responsibility, and in fact, the law required them to be that way. It wasn't as if they were destitute; they didn't need Social Services. They were just senior citizens who had children late in life, and this particular youth had become involved with a very unruly group of kids and some pretty bad stuff. So my question is: would this, through a direct agreement with a 16-year-old, be able to move them back into the family? If not, where would they go?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are four options available. One is that our ministry could enter into a voluntary agreement with the parents to place the child elsewhere; the parent could actually come to us and make that agreement. We could enter into an agreement with the youth himself, whereby he would live somewhere other than the parents' home. We could enter into an agreement that involved kinship ties, as in the section we just dealt with. Or the child could literally be removed and taken into care. But if the concern is that we would somehow interpret these facts to say that there isn't a complete alienation and therefore say, "You've got to go back to your parents," no, we wouldn't do that.

G. Wilson: So in the event an agreement is made, who is legally responsible for the actions of that child? Because that person is a young offender, I think that statutorily a legal obligation still sits with the parent, even though the parent may not have custodial rights over the child.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no guardianship obligations under this particular section of the act, so the question of who is responsible for his legal actions actually is beyond the scope of this act. There's no guardianship relationship under this section.

R. Chisholm: I'd like permission to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to make an introduction for our Speaker. Ms. Lubetkin and 60 grade 6 students from East Ridge Elementary in Woodenville, Washington, are here to observe the parliament and democracy in action. I wish them well and hope they have a very good visit while they're in Victoria.

[4:30]

While I'm on my feet, I myself have 18 students from the Chilliwack Christian School here. Would the House make them most welcome.

G. Wilson: Just coming back to that question, then, I understand there's no guardianship question in here, so the legal responsibility still rests with the parent. That's the answer I was trying to get.

J. Tyabji: After canvassing this section I would like to move an amendment directly related to this, which is an amendment allowing for conditions under which the director may make a written agreement with a youth who needs assistance. It would change section 9(1) so that (a) would be deleted, (b) would move up to (a), and we would add two more sections. So section 9(1) would read:

"A director may make a written agreement with a youth who needs assistance and who (a) has no parent or other person willing or able to assist the youth, (b) provides a written statement from his or her parent of the parent's unwillingness to assist, or (c) provides evidence to the director of his or her need for assistance."

The Chair: I thank the member for sharing that amendment with the table, and we will share it with the minister. Did the member for Okanagan East wish to speak further to the amendment?

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Yes, I just wanted to wait until the minister had a copy.

The reason for getting rid of section 9(1)(a) is that sub-subsection (a) now says: "...cannot, in the opinion of the director, be re-established in the youth's family...." That is something we have a bit of a problem with. If it can be proven they can't or that the parent or other person is not willing or able to assist the youth, or if there's a written statement to the effect that the parent is handing over the responsibility to the director, or if we have evidence that the youth is in need of assistance, then those three conditions should be enough for the director to make a written agreement with the youth. We have a problem with the director having an opinion about whether the youth can be re-established, because that may prejudice the youth's ability to be re-established in the family. We have a problem with that, especially if it turns out that the director is in dialogue with the youth, under the impression that the youth is in this process of receiving assistance, in a written agreement, because the director believes the youth cannot be re-established in the family. That seems to us to be a barrier that may prejudice re-establishment, which is obviously the intent of the bill -- to re-establish and maintain family connections. So if there are three conditions which provide for the youth to be helped in the event of there being evidence the youth needs help, then obviously that should be adequate. We hope the minister will find this amendment not only in keeping with the spirit of the bill but an improvement to this section.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent throughout the act is to ensure the safety and well-being of families and to keep families together. The reason section 9(1)(a) is in the act is to ensure that investigations are done into whether a family can be kept together or not. It's incumbent upon our experts, of whom the director is one, that the investigations be done, talking not only to the youth but also to the family concerning the circumstances. To do otherwise, to just allow parents to essentially abandon a child with a note, would be wrong. I know that probably comes as a shock, and I don't mean to be harsh, but we do regularly confront families where, if the act provided for that, it would occur.

I hope I can reassure the hon. member that the intent of section 9 is as she expresses it verbally: an investigation is mandated and must be done before services are provided. Any part of that investigation about the child's financial needs are already mandated under the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act. A means test has to be done under those circumstances.

G. Wilson: I'm speaking in favour of the amendment. I don't think we're speaking at cross-purposes here at all. In fact, this amendment speaks directly to what you're trying to do. The difficulty we have is in the way it's worded. It says: "...in the opinion of the director, be re-established in the youth's family...."

[ Page 11732 ]

As the minister has alluded to, there may indeed be situations where parents wish to somehow absolve themselves of responsibility for their child. That's undesirable. That in itself is evidence, I would guess, that there is a very substantive problem in the family that isn't going to be overcome simply through an agreement process. I'm well aware that this is addressed, at least in part, in later sections of the act. Our concern is that there needs to be a sounder set of evidentiary documentation that can be acted on, rather than simply providing for it by the opinion of the director. Given that parents may want to make that move, that in itself has to be evidence that there is a problem in the family, and I think the minister would agree. The amendment is clearly friendly and does help to strengthen the act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The policy will make very clear the set of criteria that the director has to apply in order to determine whether or not the youth can be re-established with her family. Again I say that we have to make sure we don't incorporate every aspect of policy, practice and procedure into the legislation; but that will clearly be part of the policy and procedure.

J. Tyabji: I'll make one last try on the amendment. One of the purposes of the amendment is to basically save harmless the director to some extent. The way it's worded right now, the director is on the line for her or his opinion. One determining criterion is the opinion of the director. That individual will be on the line. The difference is that if there is evidence, the evidence stands alone. It's substantive and independent, and it can be produced for a court of law or however one would like to put it forward. In that way, the director will not be accountable, because the evidence will be there. That's one reason that we'd like to have that changed.

We do have a real difficulty with "the opinion of the director," and for two reasons. One, it's an opinion. There are 75 different opinions in this Legislature every day; we can't agree on anything.

G. Wilson: That's not true.

J. Tyabji: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is saying that it isn't true, and he's probably right. There are probably four or five opinions, depending on which caucus you belong to.

Opinions change. They're arbitrary. They're based on a person's world-view, whereas evidence is objective. It's independent of the human being or their world-view. The second reason for the amendment is to protect the director and have the bill stand alone.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The state has traditionally invested this power in the director. That's a responsibility we take very seriously. The director should be held accountable for the assessments; that's part of the job. That's what the state has mandated us to do, and that's why we have this legislation.

Let me reassure you that part of the inquiry may well be documentation. It's incumbent upon us, because the director does have that responsibility assigned through the state, that a thorough investigation be done for which the director can be held accountable.

The Chair: We have had three iterations of the grounds for the amendment and three responses. It would seem to me that, given there are no new players standing to speak to the amendment, it is probably time for the question. The member for Okanagan East indicates a very small contribution...?

J. Tyabji: It's just tiny, but very important. I should mention to the Chair that if there were only one player in this room prepared to defend a position, that should be enough.

The minister was saying that the purpose of the bill is to hold the director accountable. We would hope the director is accountable for his or her actions, rather than for his or her opinions. I leave that on the record.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 9 and 10 approved on division.

On section 11.

J. Tyabji: I'll continue this quixotic pursuit under section 11. We see that "a parent under 19 years of age may make an agreement under section 6 or 7 with a director," and that any "agreement made by a director under section 6, 7 or 9 with a person under 19 years of age is enforceable against that person." I'm not sure what this means. I guess the first question is: what is the role of the grandparent? The reason I say grandparent is because the grandparent is actually the parent of a child under the age of majority. What is that person's role? That person still has legal liabilities.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The bill provides for a youth to enter into an agreement that is enforceable against the youth, actually. The provision is included in order to comply with the Infants Act, which doesn't permit people under 19 to enter into binding agreements unless another act prevents the youth.... The youth has to recognize he or she has responsibilities associated with the signing of the agreement. It would be required by our ministry to ask the youth to seek an independent person's advice before signing, if they do not comply. If they don't comply with the agreement, then support can be withdrawn. Prior to making the agreement, the director has to assess whether or not the youth can be reconnected to the family. The youth agreement will not be used to undermine the roles of the parent to raise their children.

J. Tyabji: If I understand the minister correctly, she is saying that if the parent is found to be in non-compliance with the written agreement made under section 6 or 7, the parent is liable. Is that what the minister is saying?

G. Wilson: No. It would be withdrawn.

J. Tyabji: Or the agreement would be withdrawn. Would that be a breaking of the agreement? The reason I mention that is that when we were on sections 6 and 7, those were both seen to be voluntary agreements that the parent could withdraw from at any time. I don't understand the relevance of this section, to be honest. I didn't understand the minister's answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not the parent; it's the youth who is held in compliance. This is a technical....

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Let me give you an explanation, and then we can have at it again.

[4:45]

[ Page 11733 ]

This section allows youth to enter into a legal agreement. Under normal circumstances, a youth isn't allowed to enter into a legal agreement. We want agreements where there is an obligation on both sides, not only for us to provide services, but for the youth to have a legal obligation back to us.

The Chair: Shall the section pass?

G. Wilson: Not just yet, hon. Chair, but I'm sure it will. We're not trying to be difficult here; we're just trying to understand it.

We have a parent under 19, therefore that parent is under the age of majority. That parent has a parent, who is a grandparent, therefore there is some legal obligation of the parent of the under-19-year-old parent -- i.e., the grandparent has some obligation and liability. The question is: if you enter into an agreement with a parent who is under the age of majority, how does that impact on the liability that would exist to the grandparent who has some legal obligation to that individual?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We think we have it. In this section there is no legal obligation for the grandparent. The legal obligation is for the parent who may be under 19. But is there a role for the grandparent to play? Yes, there is a role that the grandparent may play -- not to give them any legal obligation, but where they may be able to offer resources to the parent and the child as well.

G. Wilson: We understand, and I'm not sure that we are even opposed to this. So you are saying that the parent under 19 can't obfuscate their responsibility by virtue of the fact that there is a home within which that individual could go, if they have entered into an agreement with the ministry; i.e., that individual is liable for whatever that individual enters into, notwithstanding the fact that they're under the age of majority.

J. Tyabji: When we were canvassing sections 6, 7 and 9, I had the impression that it wasn't so much a legal agreement as a written agreement. We had some extensive debate on that. It seemed to me that the minister was implying that the reason for the written agreement was so that there was something in writing, which was voluntary, which at any time either party could withdraw from. When I see that it's legal and enforceable against that person, I have two questions. Is it legal in that it's registered in a court? The second question is: what would be enforceable against this minority parent? We're talking about a parent under 19 who has an agreement enforceable against her or him.

Hon. J. MacPhail: An agreement is a legal concept. What we talked about previously was that they are not orders. They are agreements that both parties enter into by mutual consent. It's still a legal agreement.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And they're binding; that's right. This section says that under normal circumstances a child under 19 isn't allowed to enter into an agreement. And there are obligations. If the agreement broke down, then I expect that there wouldn't be an obligation for us to provide the services that we agreed to by entering into the agreement.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

J. Tyabji: Section 12 says: "An agreement does not limit the court's power to hear an application and make an order about a child." In this case, will the court recognize that the agreement is a form of interim agreement? Would it be an interim custodial agreement? Would it have any weight in the court proceedings prior to the court order coming out? Would it be taken into account as part of the proceedings, before the court order?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section provides us with the opportunity to actually take action and perhaps remove the child if the child is at risk, even despite an agreement that may be made. So this is just saying that the court's right to protect a child overrides the agreement.

J. Tyabji: That's very helpful. So we're talking about the court's ability to supersede the written agreement. Actually, my question was: if there were court proceedings, let's say a custodial proceeding, and there was a written agreement in place, could that written agreement be entered into the proceedings? Does it become part of the proceedings for the purposes of the hearing, before the court order comes out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, there are no custodial proceedings under this act, except where the director is assuming custody.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and therefore if it has relevance -- if the director is assuming custody, taking the child into care -- the agreement may be determined for its relevancy. But in any other custodial proceeding it would be up to the court to decide whether it's relevant or not; we wouldn't enter into that.

G. Wilson: But I'd assume that the agreement could be entered as evidence in a court hearing in the event that the director or the judge deems it relevant. Is that right?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm just being advised that the rules of evidence that apply are way outside the scope of this act, but I guess it's the test of relevancy. It's not something that's governed by this act.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

J. Tyabji: I actually anticipate this to be a fairly contentious section. I was just trying to yield the floor to someone else, but anyway....

We have a difficulty with section 13, because the phrase "or is likely to be" comes up in almost every section. We have a problem with that, because the laws, of course, will demand that people are innocent until proven guilty. That becomes the mandate by which we determine whether or not action is taken; that's how the courts are governed. The way this is written would make it seem that.... There again it goes back to the definition of harm, abuse or neglect. There's no definitions of harm, abuse or neglect, yet in this entire section, which talks about the circumstances where the protection of a child is needed, it not only says "if the child has been...physically harmed" but also says "or is likely to be." There again we enter into the realm of opinion, the 

[ Page 11734 ]

determination by the director about whether or not something may or may not happen.

Although we will obviously be having.... I would imagine that the investigation the director would conduct on the family would precede any action or determination about when a child does or doesn't need protection. I'd certainly like to hear from the minister about the discussions that led to this section and how comfortable she feels with the phrase "or is likely to be." What guidance will be provided? Will there be further regulation or policy on this section?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section stands on its own for use not only by our child protection workers but also by the courts. Let me try to explain how it works. Of course, as I said earlier, this section has been used in other jurisdictions with success and is also in practice here. There are circumstances where a child actually hasn't been harmed, neglected or abused, but her sister has; and that parent remains in the home, as does the child. So because the behaviour of the parent hasn't changed, even though only one child has actually been abused, it's safe to predict that the other is at risk as well.

G. Wilson: We would be interested to know in what other jurisdictions this has actually been used. That's just for our own information, so that we might look it up and see indeed how successful the application has been.

I understand that this is a preventive bill, or that measures in this bill are there to be preventive. I understand what the government is attempting to accomplish by setting language in legislation that is preventive in nature. That's commendable, to be quite frank. I think it's commendable that we are attempting to prevent harm and abuse, rather than simply reacting to longstanding harm and abuse. I understand that. I don't want to go back into second reading debate on this, although it's tempting to do it.

The problem we have with the phrase "or is likely to be" is that if the director has wide discretion in looking at a variety of issues in terms of the need for protection, and if that discretion provides too much latitude, the intervention in itself could be too traumatic and detrimental, for whatever family relations might still be there, to keep that family together. So that's where our concern comes from. If there's an opportunity to keep the family together, we don't want to be precipitous by moving in so quickly that whatever counselling methods or other kinds of family consultations that could take place won't take place.

I especially say that when, under section 13(1)(e), you have: "...if the child is emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct...." Then section 13(2) says that emotional harm "demonstrates severe (a) anxiety, (b) depression, (c) withdrawal, or (d) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour." Looking at "anxiety" or "depression," unless we're talking about something empirical in terms of its measurement, there really is wide latitude here. I wonder whether the minister might comment on that. At first reading, and after further cross-referencing other sections of the bill, it just seems that this is pretty wide latitude for somebody to have.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The language that's contained in this act is certainly found in other jurisdictions, and we can actually provide you with those other jurisdictions. But let me deal with your first concern, which is that it can be just as harmful to a child to remove the child from the home as, perhaps, leaving the child in the home. Yes, you're absolutely right, and that's why we've drafted the act in this way. We finally have a new act that provides all sorts of services and alternatives other than removing the child from the home.

What will happen is: when a child is alleged to be at risk, our ministry will go in and determine whether that child is at risk because all else has failed or because other services haven't been provided that can be provided to the family in order to decrease and remove the risk from that point of view.

In fact, I'll tell you about one program that we do have in our ministry right now. It's called the home-builders program. It's intensive service support to a family where, under other circumstances, the children would actually be removed from the home. But when we examine the family, we understand that it's socioeconomic conditions. It may be a single parent who just isn't getting a break, and she needs to have some time away. Her parenting skills are less or her homemaking skills are not up to par in order to handle two, three, maybe four kids. So we actually do an intervention, and we enter the home with some intensive services. We have been successful in avoiding the kind of traumatic situation you so aptly described. However, all of that has to be assessed in terms of the risk to the child. I agree with you that in the past as much harm has been done by removing the child as by keeping the child in the home. Now we have alternatives and other legal avenues available to us.

If I can address the issue of emotional abuse, let me say that this is a new area for British Columbia. There is no question that we have never assessed the issue of emotional abuse before. Many other provinces have enshrined that in their legislation, though. Again, it's a two-part factor. I know that all of us would be ill-served if our families were deemed guilty just because one of our family members -- or indeed ourselves -- showed symptoms of anxiety or depression or were in need of therapy. We all may be found to be at risk -- not to address any particular member of the House, especially not the hon. member for Peace River South. The link here is that the child's demonstrative symptoms have to be tied to the parents' conduct. If your child is depressed because of school activity, which we know occurs.... There is lots of evidence and statistics to show that emotional abuse does arise out of the parents' conduct and is the tie.... It is a difficult test; there's no question about it. It's not one to be taken lightly or to be accused of lightly.

[5:00]

We have seen all sorts of cases in our ministry where a child is consistently belittled, taunted, emotionally neglected or subjected to harsh punishment, and these symptoms do become evident. I don't know whether the hon. members had a chance to see the documentary called "The Trouble With Evan." If you haven't, it's a good one to observe. It was a family where there was no physical abuse, but there was incessant and continuous haranguing of the child, and that was a good case of emotional abuse. It was put on by CBC's "Fifth Estate." I recommend it.

J. Weisgerber: I did see that documentary, and it was something that spoke very much to this issue, particulary subsection 13(1)(e). I do believe, however, that this definition is too broad. By setting out "emotionally harmed" as one of the reasons for apprehending or protecting a child and then describing the particular symptoms of emotional harm, you lead yourself to the situation where other people are, under this new act, going to be obliged to report abuse. They may well have no way of gauging whether those particular symptoms are the result of parental abuse or some other situation that the minister describes. It seems that by identifying those four traits of emotional abuse, you set up a 

[ Page 11735 ]

parent to be called into question, even though their own activities may not be the reason for this.

With that in mind, I would like to move an amendment to section 13, which would be to delete subsection 13(1)(e) and subsection 13(2). Under the amendment, subsection 13(1)(e) would now read: "...if the child is suffering severe emotional abuse caused by the parent's conduct...." The effect of that -- and the Chair has a copy of the amendment -- would be to take away the more general term of "emotionally harmed" and remove the specific symptoms that might be identified with it. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I move that amendment.

The Chair: I thank the member for that. We have reviewed the amendment and have passed a copy on to the minister.

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: I'd like to speak in support of the amendment. It takes care of the concerns that I was alluding to a little earlier.

Secondly, I would say that the question of the conduct of the parent being a legitimate issue -- and I think a very legitimate issue -- is one that can be reviewed with some empirical evidence by anybody doing an in-home study or by somebody who has intervened to look after the interests of the child. It looks after the concerns expressed in this section much better than the existing language, so I would strongly support the amendment.

C. Tanner: I too hadn't noted this particular paragraph. When you read section 13(1), then section 13(1)(e), then relate it to subsection (2) and look at "anxiety," it appears that there is an ability to loosely interpret the rules and take children when they're not at risk -- until you underline the word "severe" in subsection (2). That probably brings it more into perspective.

What would reassure me to leave it as it is would be if the minister would tell me whether, within her regulations and in her policy manual, she speaks to her employees as to how they interpret those sections together. Could the minister tell us how they do that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, that's an excellent point. Training is key to this so we don't intrude into the family unnecessarily. We are now developing not only a new policy manual but also new training modules to deal with the exact issue the hon. member outlines. It will require training to identify aspects of this kind of abuse as well as the severity of it.

Let me just tell you about my view on your amendment. Again, I'll to try to do it from the point of view of reassuring you about why we drafted it the way we did. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River South would really leave us with a definition of emotional abuse that is too broad, because there are no restrictions on it. It would leave families vulnerable to greater intrusion around these issues, because there are no restrictions.

Subsection (2) is trying to do what I think your intent is: to restrict the application of this definition so that families are not unduly harmed by it in a frivolous way. That's why we have put the restriction of "severe" into subsection (2). Again, these are clinical assessments and not assessments made by social workers -- other than to suggest that it may be the situation, but then we would go to the clinical assessment of a child before the courts. So the word "severe" is there to qualify all four aspects. The reason we included those qualifications was so that someone couldn't come forward and say: "John is being emotionally abused because he didn't get his allowance for six months." Some people could make accusations of that kind. This has been tested in other jurisdictions, and it has been found that you need the qualifications. You need to restrict the definition in order to not have frivolous or spurious use of it.

The last point on this, again, is to reassure you that the symptoms have to be observable, and they also have to be tied very clearly to the parent's conduct. But I know that the hon. member has recognized that.

J. Weisgerber: I believe we are all trying to get to the same place. It seems to me that the danger here is in identifying these four exhibitable traits. Indeed, other circumstances will cause the presumption of emotional abuse by the parent. The way this act is worded will cause social workers, perhaps, or neighbours or other people who know the child to make an assumption when severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour is exhibited. There could be a presumption. That's the concern I have. I genuinely believe that the wording of the amendment, again using the words "severe" and "emotional abuse," would tend to constrain those limits, and it would be less likely for some mistakes or frivolous charges to be made under this section.

G. Wilson: This is just a brief addition. I want to say for the record that the John referred to by the minister is not my legislative assistant, although I understand that his allowance was withheld.

Let me say that in my judgment, and I think the minister would agree, the amendment actually does protect against charges coming back against an individual who may have taken a decision on the basis of the wide latitude of (e) as it is currently written. It saves the director harmless. I would argue that in the interests of the staff who are having to make these recommendations, that would be a sensible thing to do. Ultimately, no matter how these things work out, somebody carries the blame.

As I pointed out in second reading debate -- and I don't want to go back through it again -- this ministry will ultimately end up having to carry the can for what goes wrong. That's what happens, whether it's your fault or not. We've already witnessed that in one other instance, where it clearly was not this minister's fault, nor was it the fault of most of the senior members of the staff. Nevertheless, because you put so much authority into that one individual, and because there is such wide latitude in the interpretation of how that individual should act, it opens up the potential for charges to come back against those who are attempting to do what this ministry seeks to do in this bill.

V. Anderson: This is one that I flagged as a concern right from the very beginning. I agree with the other members in the House that it is a major concern and one that I've struggled with.

Realizing the validity of the responsibility of the ministry, the workers, the parents and the child, and having had some personal experience that borders on the kinds of things described here, when I look at it from the point of view of the parents, I might wish that this possibility for the parents to be checked not be followed through. But I look at it from the perspective of the children, who in the final analysis must be put first. If the children are demonstrating these concerns to a schoolteacher or a doctor or whomever, and if the cause, 

[ Page 11736 ]

whether it's parental abuse or whatever, is not being dealt with, the very fact that they are being checked into so they can be dealt with on behalf of the child.... I would presume that if they are being checked into, they will very quickly say that it's not abuse. Something is being done; it's not being neglected or overlooked. It seems to me that if the symptoms are severe, then for the well-being of the child, somebody needs to be looking at it. If we discover that nobody is looking at it because somebody close to the picture doesn't recognize that it is severe.... It may be caused by things completely outside the home, but it still needs to be dealt with from the point of view of the child. There is an opportunity here to have this highlighted so that it is dealt with. In the school system, you would simply refer it to the school nurse, and say: "This child is having difficulty in school. There's a severe problem with this child; they were doing well and suddenly they're not." The nurse would look at and have to ask: "What's the reason for this?" She could tell the parents to refer her to a doctor.

[5:15]

Somebody needs to follow up when it is severe. It has the difficulty of disrupting parents and of making mistakes. I agree wholeheartedly with all of those concerns. My first reaction was to change it, but the more I think that it may get help to the child, which is the prime concern here, the more I have to go along with it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Other people frequently express this better than I. We are looking at this from the perspective of protecting children; there's no question about it. The context of the entire act is that the primary responsibility for the protection of children rests with the parents. If we have a situation where these symptoms are being demonstrated in a severe fashion, the first role of all of us is to ensure that the parent recognizes this and deals with it. That is the end of the matter then. If, however, through our list of symptoms -- that are not subjective -- it turns out that the child is at risk, then the rest of the act kicks in.

Part of our severe problems in the past was the subjectivity of the act under which we guided ourselves. That left us open to charges from both sides that we don't do enough or that we do too much. The amendment before us contributes to greater subjectivity around this, whereas our listing has some objective criteria that actually have to be demonstrated and then used by the courts as evidence or proof.

Amendment negatived on division.

On section 13.

J. Tyabji: I mentioned at the beginning of this section that from the Alliance perspective this is a contentious section in that it outlines the criteria under which a child can be apprehended. In that sense it has to be approached with a great deal of caution, as has been said previously by the member for Peace River South.

I have a number of amendments, and the Chair has seen some of them. If the Chair has any direction about a faster way for me to do this, I would be quite happy to take direction. I've tried to....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Port Coquitlam says, "Don't do it," but obviously I take my job more seriously than that.

The Chair: Thank you, member, for posing the question. A brief review of your amendments suggests to me that they are separate and discrete. Therefore we ought to deal with them in precisely that manner. Would you simply present them in the order of their appearance.

J. Tyabji: We've said from the beginning of this debate that the intent is not to prolong it but to be thorough.

The first amendment I would like to propose is with regard to the phrase "or is likely to be." It will be followed.... Actually, in this one, I would ask the Chair if I could leave this amendment on for the four following ones, because they are all directly related, even though they can be dealt with separately.

The first amendment is to delete from subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) the phrase "is likely to be." The reason for this is that the act currently reads, "A child needs protection in the following circumstances..." and then it talks about the future likelihood. The minister has addressed the intent of the bill very clearly. I'm hoping the amendments that will be introduced will clarify that.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Just for clarification's sake and to save you the problem of being ruled out of order on the basis of grammaticality, I think you mean the phrase "or is likely to be." You need to delete all of it, or else we have a major problem, and therefore the amendment would be out of order.

J. Tyabji: Yes.

The Chair: Proceed, then.

J. Tyabji: The Chair is absolutely right -- the sentence would be quite awkward. I don't know.... How about if I blame my staff for this? No, I did this on my own -- I did it on my computer -- so I'm the only person who can be blamed for this.

Hon. Chair, I'd like to introduce the amended amendment, which would be to delete "or is likely to be" from subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d). If I could move that amendment, and move to the second amendment, which is directly related, the second amendment is that in subsection (1)(a), where it says "if the child has been...physically harmed by the child's parent," we would add "or if the director has tangible evidence that the child will be harmed." That is consistent with the minister's comments that the "or is likely to be" is relevant to evidence such as a sibling or someone else in the family having been harmed, or the parent exhibiting behaviour that would be consistent with harm befalling the child. So I would like to move that amendment concurrently, if the Chair will allow that.

The next amendment is with regard to subsection (1)(b), which would read, if we accept the first amendment: "...if the child has been sexually abused or exploited by the child's parent." This amendment would add "or if the director has tangible evidence that the child will be sexually abused or exploited by the child's parent." This again is an amendment to be moved so that rather than having "or is likely to be," which is something that is the opinion of the director, the director can produce tangible evidence such as the nature of the individual or other actions the individual has taken. I would have hoped that if our other amendments had been accepted, those would have been defined as criminal, or potentially criminally prosecutable, actions.

[ Page 11737 ]

The second-to-last amendment on this would be for subsection (1)(c), which would read, if the first amendment passed: "...if the child has been physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited by another person and if the child's parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child." It would add "or if the director has tangible evidence that the child will be physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited if the director does not intervene." This again takes out the subjectivity of the director and would ensure that there must be tangible evidence, as I mentioned in the previous two amendments.

The last one, which is concurrent with the previous amendments, would be for subsection (1)(d), which currently reads, if the first amendment were accepted: "...if the child has been physically harmed because of neglect by the child's parent." It would add "or if the director has tangible evidence that the child would be physically harmed because of neglect by the child's parent."

The reason for those amendments to subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) is that they take out the director's subjectivity. As the minister has said, that will be addressed in the guidelines. However, we'd like to take the subjectivity out of the bill and make it something where other actions -- tangible evidence -- can be entered in the determination of whether or not a child is in need.

The Chair: I feel like saying that if we were in the United States of America, what I am about to say now would be fighting words. On the first amendment, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: In speaking in favour of the first amendment, which hopefully will trigger all the others, the members of the Alliance fully recognize that this is a preventive bill. We understand -- and in fact we support -- what the government is attempting to accomplish by having preventive action. The only thing we take issue with here is not that the wording permits preventive action, but that there needs to be some evidentiary set of criteria by which that intervention can take place. It is a dangerous proposition for us to put into place legislation that empowers the state to take action that will have the potential to abrogate civil rights, even though it's done in a way to protect those who are not able to protect themselves. We fully support what the minister is attempting to accomplish; we just don't think the wording as it sits now safeguards against unusual and, we think, perhaps unwarranted powers the state would have without it having to provide some form of evidentiary guidelines for it. That's the whole purpose of the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again we must remember that this section is dealing with the protection of children. I'll be frank; I don't know what civil right allows a person to abuse a child, so it's not an issue of civil rights here. Let me deal with the amendments, and I'll deal with them as a package, hon. Chair, if that's permissible.

The first amendment deletes "is likely to be" -- i.e., the ability for experts to use judgment in the prediction of future behaviour; yet the following amendments say you can make that prediction as long as you can produce tangible evidence of it. I think the amendments work against themselves: on the one hand, the wording is being removed, and on the other, the same concept is being inserted.

Every single jurisdiction allows for a predictor of abuse, otherwise you end up being able to act only after a child is actually abused or, in the worst-case scenario, after the child is dead. It doesn't make any sense to remove from us the ability to make a judgment call on predicting people's behaviour. Let me give you an example. There may be four children in a home, and with only one is there is actual evidence of abuse on which we have to act. There are all sorts of studies showing that the best indicator of future behaviour is past conduct. When you go into court, the first thing a judge will ask you is: "What evidence do you have that this is likely to be?" Then you have to produce the evidence.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: But you don't need your amendment to do that; we're not reinventing the wheel here. There are all sorts of practices and court procedures around the issue that the "likely to be" nature of it has to be proven. You do that by indicating past conduct around these issues. In all of this, the final arbiter about the likelihood of abuse to occur is the court, and the court always rules on evidence.

M. Lord: I rise to request leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Lord: I rise today on behalf of my colleague the hon. Attorney General, MLA for North Island, to make two introductions, actually. We have visiting with us in the Legislature today, from Ray Watkins Elementary in Gold River, 50 grade 7 students, their teacher Ms. Fischer, and several adults accompanying them. Would the House please make them welcome.

In addition we have visiting us, from Carihi Secondary School in Campbell River, 13 grade 11 and grade 12 students accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Lahay, and several parents here as escorts. Would the House please welcome these visitors from North Island.

C. Tanner: I need some procedural edification here. If the first motion is defeated, the rest go too. Is that correct?

The Chair: I don't believe there's that direct connection. In spirit you're right, but I don't think there's a direct connection. I would have to treat them as separate -- in other words, the first one separate from the other four, which I think are a block. Does that clarify it for the member?

C. Tanner: Just to make sure that we understand it, then, we'll have one vote on the first one and then one vote on the next four.

The Chair: If the House gives its permission to proceed that way, yes.

G. Wilson: I come back to the comment the minister made, because I think that comment, while perhaps not intended, really unfairly represents the position I just put forward. I have not said anybody's civil rights allow them to abuse a child. The member for Okanagan East has not said that. I haven't heard that from the member for Peace River South or any other member who has spoken to this bill.

The minister will recognize that it is only because this bill deals with the protection of our most precious of resources, and that is our children -- it is only if we look at it in terms of our own families, looking at the protection of innocent children from abuse -- that we would even entertain the 

[ Page 11738 ]

notion that you could take action prior and precipitate it against something that has not yet happened. We don't do that in our society.

I can tell you that there are people who take issue with those who would threaten abuse of somebody's welfare. If somebody threatens you and you go to the law enforcement agencies and say, "This person has threatened me with abuse," that law enforcement agency cannot take precipitant action against that individual if that individual has not acted. We have to be very careful that if an action hasn't occurred, the state must limit its powers to intervene. The only reason we are prepared to entertain this notion is that children are defenceless, and therefore we have to have some means to look at some kind of preventive action. That's why this bill is complex, that's why this bill is difficult, and that's why this amendment is necessary.

[5:30]

The amendment suggests that if there is some evidence of abuse -- and the minister just indicated in her examples -- then we can see that that evidence would allow for the state to take action. But that's not what the language of this bill says. Notwithstanding what a judge may order, a court order by a judge is going to happen subsequent to intervention by the state and all of the authorities that the state will have. When the state intervenes it will abridge the civil rights of a parent. That may be necessary in the case of an abusive parent, but it is not necessary in the case of a parent who may be perceived to be abusive but is not. That's where we are heading on this question about the need to present some evidence. In a free society we always have to be very careful of giving the kind of powers to the state that this bill does, notwithstanding the fact that we recognize it as a need.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We need to pursue this a little. Society uses all sorts of cases where they predict that certain behaviour will happen and prevent certain actions as a result of that prediction. In the area of driving, we predict that when you drink you're going to be a lousy driver; and you're not allowed to, whether you are a lousy driver or not.

In the area of the Mental Health Act, certain parts of that act predict that behaviour may require other predictions of certain types of behaviour requiring legal action. Threatening, which is an indicator of future behaviour, is an illegal act under the Criminal Code. I have to be frank with you. If this likelihood concept is removed from this legislation, we would be the only jurisdiction that would have that removed and not have that ability to act in those circumstances. Indeed, this new act would allow us to do less than what we're allowed to do under the current act, which also provides for this prediction of likelihood of behaviour. We, as a ministry, face circumstances every day -- confirmed by the courts through their judgment -- that the likelihood that a certain child is greatly at risk can be predicted.

G. Wilson: I think I've made my point; I don't want to belabour it. Using the example of drinking and driving, the fact that you are in a pub and beyond the limit doesn't allow a law enforcement officer to arrest you prior to getting into your car. Once you get into the car and drive, and there's evidence that you are operating a motor vehicle while impaired, that is evidence and you can be prosecuted.

An Hon. Member: But you haven't driven anywhere.

J. Tyabji: You don't have to drive anywhere.

G. Wilson: You don't have to. You have an intention to drive. So the question is....

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. members. I don't think we ought to have a bunch of private conversations. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has the floor.

G. Wilson: I've already acknowledged that there are times when the state must be empowered to act; no question about it. Every law that is passed diminishes to a degree one's civil rights within a free society. You diminish your individual freedom, certainly, by legislation and regulation, which is how we keep order in society. I understand that, and I don't contest that, but I think we have to make sure that we stick to the letter of legislation that requires evidence. If we don't do that, what we are doing is giving discretion to take action prior to an event occurring, which may not, in fact, have occurred if that action had not been taken. In those instances.... I understand what the minister is saying: better to err on the side of caution than to err and have a really tragic situation occur. I am fully sympathetic to that position. I know this is a difficult question to legislate. But in our judgment, the amendment would allow for that error to take place on the basis of some kind of tangible evidence.

C. Tanner: I have one last word on this one. When the minister says that we would be the only jurisdiction without this legislation, in the other jurisdictions is it specifically specified or is it likely to be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: I think there is a longstanding saying: two wrongs don't make a right. I'd like to see the other jurisdictions.

What we're trying to say.... Of course, you can always improve on a good idea. When the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about the drunken driving incident, he was saying that even if that person drinking in the pub had their car keys in their hand, there is still not tangible evidence that that person is going to drive. Once they enter the car, then they have evidence.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying: "Does there have to be an incident first?" Clearly, the minister on her own testimony in the House, has said that if the person has abused another child in the house, those other children are in danger. That's tangible evidence. We are not removing the likelihood from this section; on the contrary, the amendments include the likelihood. Nothing has to happen. There just has to be evidence that the person might have an inclination -- but there has to be evidence. The amendments remove the likelihood of an arbitrary determination by a director and move it to where there is tangible evidence, which the minister is saying has to be introduced in the courts, anyway. So what this would do is preempt a precipitant action by someone who may be well-intentioned but who has no evidence to act to remove the child from the home or to protect the child.

The Chair: This matter has, I think, been canvassed thoroughly. I am going to call the question on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

[ Page 11739 ]

The Chair: We have another set of amendments, four in number. May I suggest we treat those as a collective.

Amendments negatived on division.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Port Coquitlam should get up and into the debate; he's obviously got a very strong opinion on this section.

Continuing on section 13, again we go to who decides and how it is determined. If a definition of expert had been in the definitions section, then we could have simply amended each subsection to allow the word as determined by an expert, and then have that expert be determined by guidelines.

For the purposes of clause (e), where we read that a child is in need of protection if the child is emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct, we see that that is tied to subsection (2), as the member for Peace River South said. That amendment was defeated, so it still stands. Subsection (f) states: "...if the child is deprived of necessary health care." Both of those are obviously circumstances that should be determined by someone who has some background in that. In the specific case I mentioned earlier, when we talked about the young child whose parents were basically forced by an edict from Social Services and their physician to administer an experimental drug to their child, we saw that Social Services was pursuing that without having an expert opinion.

In this case, in the absence of definitions of harm, neglect and abuse, I would like to move two amendments at the same time, by leave of the House. I would amend subsection (e) to add "as determined by a clinical psychologist," after the word "conduct," and after the words "health care" in (f), add "as determined by a practising physician." As I said earlier, if there were a definition of expert in the definitions section, we could have simply made reference to an expert.

The purpose of the amendments is simply to provide further input into the determination of when a child needs protection, that determination being provided by at least one expert.

The Chair: Just for clarification, hon. member, if I might, is it fair and accurate to conclude that the purpose of these amendments is, in kind, precisely what the purpose of the preceding four were -- namely, to ensure that there is some objective analysis or appraisal?

Interjection.

The Chair: All right, I asked that simply for clarification. Having received that clarification, I will then put both amendments on the floor.

On the amendments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The issue here is who is going to make the judgment from an expert point of view. This whole issue involves reviewing the circumstances with the family and the involved persons. First of all, there has to be an investigation to determine whether the child is at risk. The director in that investigation considers the past history of the parents' acts and behaviours and also considers the individual child's vulnerabilities. The social worker who is doing the investigation is a trained professional and relies on information obtained from law, health, education and other professionals when assessing whether or not a child is at risk.

If the matter goes to the courts, there is a whole wealth of law already determined around what constitutes an expert and who is able to give expert testimony. I wouldn't in any way want to limit the right of a court to call a range of experts. It very well may be that expert evidence is required under this section, and I wouldn't want to limit the court's right to call a wide range of experts.

Amendments negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: I have a question under subsection (1)(g), which says: "...if the child's development is likely to be seriously impaired by a treatable condition and the child's parent refuses to provide or consent to treatment." Could the minister give us some guidance on how that will be implemented?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me reassure you that it is not the notion that there is a medical condition here that gives rise to the concern. That is not the issue, and we've canvassed that earlier. Certain medical conditions and psychological conditions may have nothing to do with an abusive situation. What is here, though, is where a parent is aware of a medical or emotional condition and, after having been made aware of that condition and being aware of the condition, refuses to act on the child's behalf in taking action regarding that medical or emotional condition. There has to be an indication of active refusal to deal with the child's ill health.

J. Tyabji: Would that refusal to deal with ill health be overturned by this section in the event of the decision by the parents being made on religious grounds?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do have circumstances of religion when that sometimes does occur. The final determination of what is in the best interests of the child is determined by the courts.

[5:45]

J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying that section 13 would be used in a court of law to guide the court about when a child, by court order, is in need of protection in the event of the parent deciding, for religious reasons, not to have the child treated? Did the minister hear the question?

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying that section 13 is for the purpose of guiding the court to determine when a child needs protection, and under subsection 13(1)(g) that that is when a parent, for example, might be exercising a religious belief to prevent treatment of a child and that would be used to help guide the courts?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: On those grounds, I will move an amendment with regard to subsection 13(1)(g), because I do believe that the bill is very strong in terms of talking about harm, abuse and neglect. I don't think that we should be infringing on the religious freedoms of the parents. I know that there are a number of specific circumstances where a doctor has made a recommendation and the parent has refused because the parent believes it's not in the child's best interests to pursue that medication, sometimes on religious grounds, and there 

[ Page 11740 ]

have been many cases where the parents were correct. I move the amendment that we delete subsection 13(1)(g).

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: On the defeat of the last amendment, I would like to move an amendment standing in the name of my colleague the member for Peace River North.

The essence of the amendment is: under subsection (1)(g), to delete the word "development" and substitute the word "health" instead -- the notion being that the description by the word "development" is too broad and too vague. Some suggestions are that it might be athletic or artistic development that's being referred to. In addressing this amendment, if the minister could suggest a form of development that wasn't of a health nature but was a need that had to be addressed, perhaps that would clarify it for everyone.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me tell you why the word "development" is here, and perhaps that will give you assurance. In some circumstances, a child can be impaired through lack of medical attention, where their immediate health isn't at risk but their development is. I'm thinking of handicapped children who require constant stimulation or physical therapy in order to develop. In fact, there have been circumstances where medical attention has been withheld. Strictly speaking, the child's health was not at risk, except that their development toward a greater existence was. That's why that is there. That's just one example.

J. Weisgerber: My fear is that the development term is so broad that it would cover much more than the example the minister used. I think it's quite clearly covered by "health." If indeed health care is involved, then I think the word "health" would cover it. I don't see the word "development" as being necessary, and it's subject to frivolous use.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: The last amendment I propose under this section is to subsection (l), which currently reads: "...if the child is in the care of a director or another person by agreement and the child's parent is unwilling or unable to resume care when the agreement is no longer in force." The amendment would add after the words "in force" the phrase "and the director has tangible evidence to that effect."

The only reason, as we've been doing with all the amendments, is to try to introduce some accountability to the bill, and especially to this section. Throughout all of these amendments, we agree with the intent of the section, but we disagree with the wording and have a problem with the open-ended opportunity in the bill.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The tangible evidence is demonstrated in the language already by the parent's unwillingness or inability to resume care. That is the evidence.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 13 approved on the following division:

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

One vote 21: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).

L. Stephens: When we broke for lunch, we were discussing societal issues in the schools today and what some responses might be. On one of the trips I took in Washington State, I had an opportunity to see how the Edmonds school district deals with this problem there. Within their schools, and in a separate room, they have available a professional liaison person who deals with the kinds of issues we were talking about this morning. Community outreach and community services are accessed by that individual.

There's an opportunity for the school to buy the service it requires. It could be extra service in ESL or for native people or the learning disabled. It could be extra service for any of the social issues we see in the schools, and it seems to be 

[ Page 11741 ]

working there. I wonder if the minister has looked at that particular model and whether or not he's contemplating something along the same lines.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have not personally looked at that model. It seems to be almost a clearinghouse model. I'm looking instead, and hoping to get support from the other ministers involved, at a somewhat more ambitious and I think more effective model than that, and that is to have professionals from other relevant areas physically located in our schools.

L. Stephens: That conjures up some difficult images for me. It suggests -- probably screams -- bureaucracy, and I'm not convinced that those kinds of services should be delivered through the school system. I think they can be accessed, but I don't think it's the responsibility of education to deliver those services. In the model I was discussing, the difficulties and the services are identified in the classroom and in the school and are then referred to one person employed by the school who then goes out into the community and accesses the kinds of services that are required.

[3:00]

I would suggest that this model should be seriously looked at by the ministry, because one that attempts to encompass all the types of services that are required within the school would generate huge costs, a huge bureaucracy and government intervention in a lot of those areas, and I'm not convinced that would be acceptable. Would the minister give some comfort to the opposition by conducting some kind of public hearings or by gathering some public input into a change that I view as quite significant?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps the member misunderstands. This is not a case of hiring a lot of new people. This is a case of coordinating the services of the ministry so that the person whose services are required is where they are required. If we have a school of 1,000 or 2,000 students, why not fashion it along a community school model and have a professional person from Social Services in the school rather than in an office downtown? I'm not proposing that we would hire additional staff, nor would they, in fact, be employees of the school system. They would remain employees of Social Services who would simply be located physically in a different location.

If a student is in difficulty and speaks to the school counsellor, teacher or principal, the principal is then able to say, in effect: "Just down the hall is a person who is able to help you, and I'll organize that." Rather than having to send them down the hall to speak to somebody who then tells them where they might be able to find help in the community, why not give them the help immediately?

L. Stephens: I have no difficulty with them receiving the help immediately, but I will suggest, again, that that system would be a very bureaucratic one. If there's one thing that is endemic to the education system, it seems to be a lot of bureaucracy, and I think this would add more to it. But is the minister contemplating some kind of public input on this question?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there will be consultation. There will be a carefully thought-out process. There will be a forum on June 23, which is going to bring together members of community groups, social ministries, community schools and aboriginal representatives in order to discuss this idea through and to perhaps pick a number of pilot sites to see how it works. I'm confident it's going to work very well and very effectively.

L. Stephens: I didn't quite hear the first part of the minister's response. Was there a place mentioned? I know about the June 23 forum, but was there a place and time settled?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The location will be a secondary school in Vancouver, but a specific school has not been chosen yet.

L. Fox: I would like to follow up that interesting conversation between the minister and the opposition critic. I support the direction that the minister is suggesting. It's a very laudable objective. It would take a lot of pressure off the teaching staff and put it on professional people to deal with these problems -- not that our teachers haven't been able to. I think they've done a very credible job over the years. In many cases, they are not trained to deal with the issues that we're faced with on a regular basis. I think it's the right direction.

A similar action has taken place in the more rural school districts where we have native home-school coordinators. The native children have an opportunity to access somebody right within the school who understands their cultures, their difficulties and so on. That has proven to be a very worthwhile service; it's similar to what the minister is putting forward right now as an objective. I think it will prove itself to be a worthwhile and viable initiative.

I just want to go back to the discussion in which we talked about the idea of amalgamating some school districts. The minister suggested that it would probably take some type of judicial process in order to come up with whether or not there should be amalgamation, on what basis it should be, and so on. I would hope that, if it were to take place, there would be recognition given to the demands of geography in rural parts of the province. I guess I'm looking for some assurance that it would be the number one criterion in any judge's decision.

The Chair: Hon. minister, can you provide a quick answer?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A quick answer is that geographic considerations would have to be a relatively high priority. We have school districts that are the size of some European countries -- we have to keep that in mind -- and the Rocky Mountains and other mountain ranges.

The Chair: There is a division, and we are required in the other House. We will recess for the time required.

The committee recessed at 3:07 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:17 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

L. Stephens: Just a little more on social services in school facilities. Have any preliminary studies been done on any net savings or net costs that may be associated with delivery of this kind of service?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That is partly what the pilot programs are intended to do at this point. I would suggest that the member keep in mind that I simply mentioned this 

[ Page 11742 ]

as one initiative among many that happen to be underway in the ministry. This one came up because we were talking about how to avoid certain problems in schools, and I said that there is this initiative coming which will help with that. Inasmuch as we have spent perhaps three or four hours on our opening statements -- and philosophy, if you will -- I would urge that we move on to specific questions with respect to the budget at hand so we can make some progress in the estimates.

L. Stephens: We were just about to do that, which is why I asked whether or not you knew of any savings or costs associated with the type of initiative that you're speaking of. You said that there are pilot programs underway at this point and that this hasn't been determined. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's correct.

L. Stephens: Very well. We are going to move into funding, specifically block funding. I wonder if the minister could talk a little about the student services portion that block funding provides for in the grants. Let's talk specifically about the special grants to school boards for now. Perhaps the minister could break those down and talk about the services and their cost.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could I seek clarification about whether the member was asking about special grants or about a component of the ministry budget or of the block? I'm not certain to what she is directing this.

L. Stephens: The special grants to school boards.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again I'm going to seek clarification from the member. What specifically are you asking about the special grants?

L. Stephens: The $30 million to behaviour disorders, the new addition to the definitions.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That clarifies part of the misunderstanding. The $30 million is not a special grant; it is in the block. It is a sum of money to fund an initiative to assist the system to deal with problems related to the instruction of students who are troubled by severe behaviour problems.

L. Stephens: The incremental special education funding, then, includes the $30 million in funding for severe behaviour problems. Also included in that are categories such as learning assistance, special health services, high-incidence/low-cost and hospital-homebound. How does this break down in relation to the $30 million? And could the minister expand a bit on what is targeted to the district level?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I understand further now what the member is getting at. Rather than special grants or support services, I believe she is inquiring about funds targeted to special needs education. These funds are targeted across the province in the sense that a floor is provided.

There is a total of just under $400 million allocated to a variety of special needs programs. These encompass learning assistance, special health, severe behaviour, a category known as high-incidence and one known as low-incidence, plus dependent handicapped, gifted and hospital-homebound. All those together constitute a fund of something under $400 million, or roughly 10 percent of the total education budget. Each district has received an allocation of that amount, depending on a process of identification counts that they do. They provide those counts and the categories to the ministry, and we then fund up to a certain percentage, in some categories, of the student population. It is about $362 million in total, and that is distributed to the districts and identified as a floor. The districts may spend more than that, but they cannot spend less.

L. Fox: I rise to ask for a commitment from the minister. Given that I have some business in my riding and unfortunately have to leave at 3:30 p.m. to catch a plane -- I can't get to my riding otherwise -- I want the assurance of the minister that the estimates will be open for all areas of canvassing beyond this evening. I have a number of questions on education programs and capital structures that I would like to address. I know there has been an arrangement made with the opposition member in terms of the process of going through the estimates, but I would hope that I have the opportunity to go back if I miss some of the areas you've covered.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd be pleased to give you the assurance that when the estimates pick up, which will be next Monday I presume, you'll have the full opportunity to canvass any areas you wish.

L. Stephens: As for the additional $30 million that's provided for the support programs to the categories we were discussing, there's going to be a further $3 million available this year for teacher training. Could the minister expand a bit on that -- how it's going to be spent and in what areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process of integrating special needs students into our classrooms -- a process which, by and large, has been very successful -- does present instruction challenges to teachers who are not necessarily prepared for the various kinds of instructions or prepared to make use of various learning materials, guides and support materials that may be available.

The $3 million that Treasury Board has granted will allow us to give assistance both in professional development for teachers and in instruction for support staff to better enable them to carry out their instructional responsibilities to special needs students.

L. Stephens: I understand that. What I'm asking is what kinds of special training the teachers and teachers' aides will need in order to facilitate their service to the students. What kinds of services are you talking about?

C. Morton: Just to speak to the member's last question in terms of the $3 million that's been provided in the 1994-95 budget for special ed training of both teachers and teachers' assistants, it essentially continues what was started this spring. A $3 million allocation was also given out to the system in the spring. Each district was allocated an amount of money for teacher and teacher assistant training in special education. The intent of the additional $3 is to allow them to continue the programs the districts have already put in place, plus work with the BCTF to do some in-service training around the province, which they can in turn give their locals to work with the districts to provide. So it's an ongoing program that was initiated last year within each district.

[3:30]

[ Page 11743 ]

L. Stephens: I understand that the money was there, it was given and it is being continued. The question is: what kinds of services and skills are the teachers being taught in order to help those special needs students?

The question that flows from that is: should those services that the special students need be delivered by teachers or by another professional person or group or whatever? What specifically are the teachers and teachers' aides being taught to enable them to deliver this service?

C. Morton: The ministry has actually been working with the special ed advisory committee to develop a package of information that each district and each teacher can use in terms of teacher training for special ed. It's gone out to the system for their use, in draft form. That way we're trying to get some consistency in terms of the guidelines and the nature of the training that's going on for teachers and teachers' assistants.

They are essentially guidelines that allow teachers to develop school-based teams for the management of the integration of special ed kids, to let them know where alternative help in the community can be found to identify a special ed kid and to develop a curriculum that is revised to allow special ed children to learn at different paces. It's quite a holistic program around integration of special ed children into the classroom, and it involves either referencing resources or giving them new resources to use during the course of a school day. Also, it lets them know what other alternatives are available in the community to assist them and the families of the special ed children. We could provide you with the resource package that we've sent out, if you'd like.

L. Stephens: Yes, I would welcome the package. I assume it is part of the individual learning plans that are developed for students.

The accreditation funding for schools, which all require accreditation now, is through a separate target grant for this 1994-95 year. I wonder if the minister could break that down for me. How much is going into that accreditation fund? Is it going to be phased in? How is that going to work? How much will be going in for this particular year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The cost for an elementary school over a two-year period would be approximately $20,000, for a middle school approximately $30,000 and for a secondary school approximately $50,000. Inasmuch as they would be accredited every six years, that would be the cost for six years. But on an annual basis, the total is about $2.2 million for the province.

L. Stephens: Grants for enrolment growth after September 30 will be maintained at their current level of $2.1 million -- if that's a correct figure -- and growth will be determined on a school-by-school basis rather than a district basis. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is an enrolment-driven process. We've changed the criterion. The criterion used to be that if there was an enrolment increase across the district of more than 1 percent, new funding kicked in, based on their September 30 enrolment count. We've modified that because there was an unfairness. Although the growth could be less than 1 percent within a district, some neighbourhoods within the district could have experienced substantial growth with an impact on the budget of individual schools. So we changed the system to have it kick in when there is a 2 percent increase in the enrolment of any given school. Then it is fully funded, based on the differential between the figures of September 30 and the initial enrolment.

L. Stephens: Growth is 2 percent. Is there a minimum number of students as well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there is a minimum of four in student change, so for a school of 200, that would be a 2 percent growth. But above four students, if the enrolment growth is more than 2 percent, either must meet both conditions. The figure given in the estimates book is precisely that; it is our best estimate of what additional funding will be required, based on the September 30 enrolment. The actual figure will reflect actual enrolment.

L. Stephens: There were some changes to the funding for senior secondary students on an FTE basis. Could the minister talk about that and expand on the reasons for the change? What dollar amounts into the system -- either plus or minus -- does the minister see resulting from that change?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The system was previously funded on the head-count basis, then students who might attend only for one or two courses out of eight were fully funded. This was to the advantage of some districts and the disadvantage of others. We've changed the system from a head-count system to an FTE system. But in order to cushion the blow a little, we are counting any student taking even one course as half-time, a 0.5 FTE, and for each course above one that they take, there is a further one-quarter FTE credit. If they're taking at least three courses, they're fully funded. Switching to an FTE count allowed us to reallocate about $7 million within the system.

L. Hanson: The minister said there was a 2 percent plateau for increased funding. If I understand correctly, a school with a population of 200 and three extra students would get nothing, whereas a school that had five extra students would be funded back for the full five.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Your analysis is correct, but keep in mind that the funds do not go to the individual school but to the school board, and it is for the school board to distribute the money. By switching to growth-per-school as a trigger, it simply put in place a fair process in recognizing that those districts that had high growth in a few schools, but less than 1 percent overall, previously got nothing. This formula gives them some money as well. Then it's up to the board to allocate it.

L. Hanson: I think I understand that fairly clearly. The school-by-school basis is the calculation, but the funding goes to the school district -- that's understandable. Does that same 2 percent principle apply in the case of the FTE or senior student calculation? You suggested that in the senior classes one course was worth 0.5, and each course after that was 0.25. Is that same 2 percent triggered by individual schools?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.

L. Stephens: Some interim changes were announced for 1994-95: one-time community growth grants, an additional $700 per student and $75,000 for each community school.

[ Page 11744 ]

I'd like to start with the one-time community growth grants. Could the minister tell us which areas received that money?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The technical distribution group carried out an analysis which indicated that, in effect, some districts were underfunded, and others were overfunded. Had I chosen to implement the group's report, we would have had a case of winners and losers, in which the losers outnumbered the winners. The losers made it very clear to me that this was a situation they would find intolerable, in that all of them felt their finances were pressed. But for a variety of other reasons, I set aside the technical distribution report.

However, I recognized that there were some districts that were for the most part appropriately identified by the technical distribution group, which were suffering extraordinary cost pressures, quite often related to growth and urban issues. In order to give those districts a bit more help, I established the community growth fund and distributed it in accordance with a growth formula by which there had to be growth of at least 600 students in the district over a two-year period.

[3:45]

But I also brought in the community schools grant, purposely sending a signal to the system that I think community schools are a good idea. I granted $75,000 per community school to assist them with some extraordinary associated costs. If you are looking for a list of the particular districts that benefited from the community growth grant, I can provide you with a copy of it, which details amounts and districts.

L. Hanson: How much of the budgeted funds for that growth purpose was actually distributed? What was the budget last year, and how much of it was distributed to actual schools?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I want to double-check first that we're speaking here of the community growth grant and not enrolment growth.

L. Hanson: Yes, community growth.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the community growth grant, the $8,218,000 has already been dispensed, and you will be pleased to know that the Vernon School District received just under $100,000 of that grant.

D. Jarvis: I want to talk to the minister about a certain situation in which I find a lot of irony. It regards his original statement that when he sent his 3.9 percent allotment to the various school boards, he said: "This increase reflects our commitment to meeting the needs of students in the classroom." He believes firmly that the funding levels for 1994-95 are adequate to enable schools. If he wants to look at that later, it's dated January 31, 1994. Yet at the same time, he fails to consider that 17 of the districts still have outstanding collective agreements or are on the third year of their collective agreement. So in that instance, there is a discrepancy to start with.

Then you say further that they should discuss these things and that they can run the schools adequately as long as they have full discussion with the teachers and all the rest of it. How are these school boards going to be able to discuss education systems that will be adequate for their students if they have an outstanding collective agreement that they have to go along with? At the same time you have red-lined certain subjects or things about the money that has to be allocated for special needs, support groups and aboriginal groups. These are the only areas in the budget that the school board has any room to manoeuvre because the rest is taken up by collective agreements, salaries and administration costs.

Then you turned around and said that you're going to start this growth fund. You're looking specifically at community schools. My district, 44, is on record as being the first school district to start community schools 24 years ago. The irony is that it has been required to start closing community schools because there aren't sufficient funds from the ministry for staffing. So the ministry is now in a situation where there are two classes of school districts. One is the 17 that are still running on a collective agreement they can't change. There's no way out of that.

District 44, for example, has chopped and chopped. This year, to try to meet their budget, they have now cut out another 28 teachers, 8 administration -- vice-principals and things like that -- and 11 support staff. They keep chopping. I can read you 30 different situations where they've chopped and chopped. Now where else are they going to go? Has the ministry given any consideration to funding for situations where they don't meet with the growth fund?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect, there were about 27 statements and 22 questions in the member's ramble. It's hard to give you a focused answer. I'm going to try this because I think there will be a follow-up question.

The funding to North Vancouver, District 44, increased 2.6 percent this year, which is quite favourable to their enrolment increase of 1.2 percent. The funding in North Vancouver is $5,362 per pupil, which is comparable to most of the suburbs in the vicinity of Vancouver.

With respect to the targeting of special needs, not only has the school board been able to meet the challenge of its budget, but it is in fact budgeting about 10 percent over the floor I set in special ed. I think the school board in North Vancouver, which is District 44, has done a fine job. They did not receive any moneys this year, because their community schools are not officially recognized by the community schools organization. I have communicated to them, however, that we would be willing in future to consider other types of community schools in these grants. Beyond that, we were able to arrange a special grant of about $180,000 for that district as a result of the efforts of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

The committee recessed at 3:52 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:02 p.m.

D. Jarvis: I'll go back to the discussion we were having before we were in the House. It appears that all these special red-lined items have added $1.6 million to the North Vancouver budget. I wonder whether it's necessary for you to say specifically that these must be necessary. Aboriginal ed, for example, was increased more than $500,000. We could run a hell of a lot of diagnostic centres for $500,000. All you have left is to cut off diagnostic centres and things like that. There is nothing more critical to today's society than the relevancy of learning disabilities. We know that. That's why the kids are leaving school, and that's why the prisons are full. It's from the past, where situations weren't attended to and the rest of it. You are just manifesting the situation here. You are leaving the school boards -- District 44, for sure, and possibly other ones -- in a position where they have no other 

[ Page 11745 ]

choice. On the minister's instructions and on the basis of their collective agreements, they have to get rid of programs that are direly needed in the community. As far as I'm concerned, that's not providing good education service. Could the minister respond to that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They couldn't conceivably have increased their aboriginal education by $500,000, because the total of their aboriginal education is only $340,000. If they are receiving $340,000, it means that the school district of North Vancouver has identified a number of aboriginal students and has provided us with a count, and we have funded an extra amount over and above the block to provide instruction services to those aboriginal students.

What I am saying to the districts is that if they are claiming extra funds to provide instruction, then I insist that they provide the instruction. In this case, it's $340,000. The targeted funding for special ed was just over $10 million. The actual amount that North Vancouver has budgeted for special ed is more than $1 million above that; it's $11.2 million. The school board has found the money, and the local decisions have been made. They are living within the budget allocation given. If the members opposite wish to stand in the House and support an increased budget for education, such that we can give additional allocations to districts, I'd be only too pleased to receive your support.

D. Jarvis: I think we are playing around with the numbers. The simple fact is that on the basis of last year's budget, which has been dropped, plus the year increase, North Vancouver is short $1.5 million. How do we solve the problem there? They are short by $1.5 million, and they're not increasing any other aspect of education. They are in fact decreasing everything. All the services are going down except the collective agreement.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The budget for North Vancouver is approximately $90 million. If they are in the process of getting to their budget allocation and have to find $1.5 million in savings, that means that I have asked them -- I have put a challenge to them -- to find approximately 1.5 percent efficiencies someplace in their system. I've asked them to look at their administrative expenses, expenses in central office, school-based administrative expenses and the other services that are provided and find 1.5 percent.

I'll admit that is a challenge. But consider what this government has done for education compared to every other province. We have increased education funding by about 18 percent -- 17 percent over three budgets. We increased education funding by 4 percent this year. If you look at every other province in Canada, there have been cuts in education. Next door to us, school boards are reeling under a 7 percent or 8 percent cut this year, and they're faced with two more 7 percent or 8 percent cuts. All through the Maritimes it's the same thing. So although a 1.5 percent cut may be a bit of a challenge, I suggest that we are funding education very well in British Columbia.

Do I wish we had more? Certainly I do. Do I wish we could offer more programs? Certainly I do. But I don't know how you can say to us, "Increase spending, increase spending," yet at the same time say: "Decrease the deficit, decrease the deficit." We are trying to find a balance between those two. I believe that we have supplied adequate funds to the district of North Vancouver, and their budget indicates that we have succeeded.

W. Hurd: I appreciate that dissertation from the minister, but he will know that the difficulty is not the amount of money being spent on the system as a whole; the problem continues to be the funding formula -- the per-pupil funding formula -- in the province of British Columbia. I'm looking at a list of the 75 districts in the province. I see North Vancouver listed at 73 -- it's seventy-third out of 75 -- and Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing districts in the country, ranks seventy-fifth in terms of the per-capita funding formula.

I should advise the minister that two weeks ago at 8 a.m. I was requested, along with the other Surrey MLAs and three members of the minister's caucus, to attend an emergency meeting of our school board, which represents to my knowledge the third time since I've been elected to this assembly that the board has made an emergency appeal with respect to the funding formula in the province. They've pointed out repeatedly that fast-growing districts like North Vancouver and certainly Surrey and Coquitlam.... I'm looking at the list of districts that are bringing up the rear -- Richmond comes in at 66, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Delta -- and I see that the major districts in British Columbia experiencing rapid growth consistently bring up the rear in terms of the block funding formula in the province.

Surely the minister can see that if we're not meeting the needs of districts that are experiencing the greatest growth in enrolment, we are jeopardizing the very future of public education in this province. Those are the districts that are experiencing the highest rate of enrolment and new growth. They're the ones in which an increasing number of parents are, by necessity of job or whatever, having to enrol their children, and they come in at the bottom of the list.

The question that was put to me at the emergency meeting on Saturday two weeks ago was: what specific action was I -- and also the three members of the governing caucus -- going to take with respect to Surrey to try to find a way to achieve a funding formula which recognizes the unique problems of growth districts?

Perhaps the minister can tell the committee why, over the past number of years but certainly in the last three years, the fast-growing districts in British Columbia continue to be so poorly served by the block funding formula? Why are more and more students who are enrolled in those districts getting a poorer quality of education than they might otherwise experience in districts around the province that aren't experiencing the same kind of growth? Perhaps we can start with that basic question.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The fiscal framework is an overly complex device that is used to distribute funds to school districts. I have indicated that it is an unsatisfactory device. From my point of view, it is horrendously complex, and I am in the process of replacing it with a simpler distribution formula.

The member should be aware that the suburban districts of Vancouver have funding that is comparable, broadly speaking, and they have less than some other districts for a variety of reasons. In Surrey, for instance, the block is lower than the provincial per-student block because there are certain cost-drivers that are lower in Surrey than they are in the rest of the province. Aboriginal education is lower. Transportation costs are lower, because Surrey tends to have a lot of schools in smaller communities. The number of career preparation programs available in Surrey is on the low side; the enrolment of multiply handicapped and severely handicapped is lower; the career prep enrolment is lower than the provincial average. The operation and 

[ Page 11746 ]

maintenance costs are lower mainly because Surrey has, on average, newer schools, and the average teacher salary is lower because the average seniority of teachers in Surrey vis-a-vis other districts is lower. So for a whole variety of reasons, Surrey receives less than the provincial average under the distribution formula.

I would point out that I attempted to assist Surrey. Through the community growth fund it received about a quarter of the total provincial allocation. Out of an amount of $8 million for the entire province, I allocated $2 million to Surrey -- one quarter of the entire growth fund to one district. There is also a funding for growth embedded in the block. Within the block, Surrey received a little over $3 million out of a total of just under $12 million. So it received about one-quarter of the entire growth funding for the province.

[4:15]

I would further point out that in the capital program, Coquitlam and Surrey are at the top of the list in terms of the number of new dollars committed. Over the past three budgets there have been 33 new schools completed in Surrey or underway, providing a total increased capacity for about 9,000 students. So I think the member should take some recognition of the fact that great efforts are being made to meet the challenges that Surrey faces.

W. Hurd: Certainly the submission from the Surrey board to the five MLAs acknowledged the fact that the growth grant was, in their words, $1.930 million, and it was appreciated. But the point they're making -- and I should quote from the document that was presented to us at this time: "The board has, on many occasions, expressed its concern to the Minister of Education and the ministry officials that high-growth districts are absorbing many costs that result from managing and generally coping with growth." And they offer this example: "...planning costs, the cost of educating the many children that arrive in the district during the year, setting up new schools, renting facilities, to mention only a few of the additional costs they face. And the fiscal framework has not and does not recognize such cost." They point out that the board has been concerned about the lack of recognition for increases in salaries, wages and benefits, which represent nearly 92 percent of expenditures.

This is a fairly significant report, because it indicates for the first time that the result is going to be an increase in the next fiscal year in the number of portable classrooms in Surrey, and it's going to culminate in 1996 in a dramatic increase in the number of portables that will be required just to meet the additional enrolment requirements in the district of Surrey.

My difficulty is that, as a representative in the city of Surrey, it has been consistently pointed out to me where the district stands in terms of per-capita funding. And while the growth grants help somewhat, the problem is that this particular shortfall has occurred for the last four or five fiscal years to the point where the quality of education in Surrey is being seriously eroded by the existing funding formula.

Two years ago we were advised by the previous minister that the entire formula was under review and that changes were going to be made in recognition of the effect it was having on fast-growing districts; nothing appears to be happening. As a result, the five MLAs in Surrey are called to an emergency meeting of the school board with respect to not only the capital budget but also the operating budget. I'm sure my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour has attended similar meetings, and the minister has to be aware -- and I'm sure he is -- that no matter how much tinkering is done, the existing funding formula is eroding the quality of education in fast-growing districts.

I challenge the minister to indicate to the committee what real steps are going to be taken in the current fiscal year to deal with districts such as Richmond. I believe about seven districts are experiencing this kind of rapid growth and are simply not being well served by this funding system.

During the course of this debate I'll be happy to table this binder, which was presented to the Surrey MLAs and points out the serious effect the current budget is having on the quality of education in Surrey. It covers everything from capital spending to wage rates. It's a full report that I'm sure the minister has received via his colleagues. I would ask him again: what concrete steps can we expect in the coming fiscal year to deal with the fiscal framework which is really robbing children in fast-growing districts of the kinds of opportunities that exist elsewhere in the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In delivering services to children, governments need to spend money. In building schools, governments need to borrow money. The member opposite often stands in his place and condemns this government for running up tax-supported public debt. You can't have it both ways, member. Either you want us to build schools in Surrey, in which case you will get off the track of beating up on government for running up tax-supported debt, or you will want us to stop building schools.

In the period from 1989 to 1993, $332 million of tax-supported debt has been incurred in building schools in Surrey. If you support the notion of increasing the tax-supported debt in order to provide schools, stand up and say so. If you want to reduce tax-supported debt, then stand up and tell me that we should not be building schools in Surrey.

With respect to per-pupil funding on the expenses, the fiscal framework gives Surrey $3,342 per pupil. The provincial average is $3,337, so in fact the amount that is spent per pupil in terms of raw numbers is almost exactly the provincial average. Where Surrey gets decreases are in factors such as lower special ed, lower salaries and an adjustment for small schools because there are many small schools in Surrey, which causes a reduction. They are in the lower mainland, so they do not get the geographic adjustments that schools in the north and the hinterland obtain, and their school costs are lower because they have newer schools.

I agree with the member that the fiscal framework has to be replaced, but I already announced months ago that the fiscal framework was being replaced. I have told the critic that it is in the process of being replaced by a new distribution formula that will treat all districts in the province with fairness and equity.

W. Hurd: At this point I think it's important to read into the record some of the expectations in the school district of Surrey. There are going to be effects from the type of budgets they're dealing with. Before I start, no one is suggesting that we're talking about a massive increase in capital spending debt. What we're talking about are operating budgets for school districts and the fact that the current fiscal framework in British Columbia has put some districts into the position where it will be almost impossible for them to catch up. I think it's fair to say that they will never be able to achieve the kinds of basic requirements that exist in other districts.

I'm looking at the enrolment in Surrey between 1983 and 1993; it increased by 50 percent. It's projected to increase 36 percent between 1993 and 2003. It's also projected that 

[ Page 11747 ]

Surrey's growth in enrolment will continue to lead other lower mainland districts and that Surrey will house a growing percentage of the lower mainland's increased enrolment. That's the reality in the city of Surrey. The payoff will be in the number of portables required to house these students. Surrey will require 366 additional portables over the next ten years. There are currently 282. It's of interest that by 1996 the number of portables will increase by approximately 25 percent. So the number of portables is going to increase dramatically in the city of Surrey, and I would point out that it's in time for the next election. I advise this minister, whether he's aware of it or not, that it will be a huge election issue in the city of Surrey. The fact is that people who live in Surrey have a perception -- whether it's real or imagined -- that their district is not being well served by the current government, and I remind the minister that three of his colleagues have seats in areas of Surrey that are probably growing faster than the two areas. They're certainly growing faster than my area in the south. But those three areas in particular, Surrey-Green Timbers, Surrey-Whalley and Surrey-Newton, are going to be carrying a heavy load of enrolment increase in coming years.

By 1996 we're going to see a dramatic increase in the number of portable classrooms in Surrey, and that is the legacy his government will be taking into the next election in 1996 in the city of Surrey, assuming -- and we all pray on this side of the House -- that there is an election by 1996. I'm confident there will be. Clearly there's a perception out there that the existing funding formula is not meeting the needs of fast-growing districts. They cannot meet the kinds of salary increases that exist in other regions of the province, and I advise the minister that this is what's happening in the city of Surrey.

The board of school trustees has been to Victoria repeatedly. They've held emergency meetings with MLAs from the two parties that represent them. They're very concerned. I'll be happy to table this document, which lists the school districts, the block funding allocation and the report from the capital budget committee where they're short $11 million for projects that have already been started. We have a crisis on our hands in public education in the city of Surrey. I've heard nothing so far during the course of debate in this committee room which would lead me to believe that I can take anything back to the trustees and parents in the city of Surrey, who I know are phoning the members of his own caucus as often as they're phoning members of the opposition. So I point out to the minister that I can't discern anything; I'll read Hansard again after the debate to determine what I can take back to the trustees. There is a crisis in Surrey. There's growing anger from parents, trustees and educators about the situation there. In the school board document, if you look at the enrolment increases throughout the lower mainland, Surrey will be facing a larger per-capita share of that enrolment increase. We're going to see a lot of portables in the city of Surrey in time for the next election.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In three years of this government, and by the time this third year is complete, we will have spent approximately $1.3 billion on schools around the province. Surrey will certainly receive its fair share of those schools. It is a burgeoning district; we all know that. Needs of children and families must be met.

In the mid-eighties when this problem began -- that is the genesis -- provincewide spending on schools dropped as low as $25 million for an entire year, and for a five-year period it averaged $50 million. In five years we fell four years behind in districts such as Surrey.

Since that time we have been struggling to catch up. I would like to share a few statistics with the member opposite. In 1991-92 the enrolment in Surrey increased by 5.5 percent, and there was a 7.5 percent increase in new schools. In 1992-93 the population enrolment went up 3.8 percent, and we had a 7 percent increase in schools. In 1993-94 the population went up 4.2 percent, and we had a 5.6 percent increase in schools. So I don't think the member can say that this government has not been striving to correct the situation in Surrey. This year Surrey has had approvals of over $31.2 million for new school projects that they can submit. As I mentioned a minute ago, there has been over $300 million in investment in schools in Surrey in a four- or five-year period. All of those are efforts that we're making in striving to meet the needs of your community.

[4:30]

However, it would give me great comfort if you would stand in your place right now and say that you would support unequivocally an increase of $300 million more in tax-supported debt in order to provide schools for children in British Columbia. If you are not willing to stand in your place and say unequivocally that you support increased public debt in order to accomplish this, then I'm afraid that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

W. Hurd: I don't think the minister has listened to a thing I've said about the effect of the block funding formula on Surrey. The problem is not increasing the amount of debt. The issue is how to allocate the existing resources in the most cost-effective manner. I have to advise the minister that my own board of trustees is soon going to endorse a motion to leave the B.C. School Trustees' Association over this very issue.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They've left.

W. Hurd: If they've left, they're soon going to be gone for good. The reason is that they believe the association is not representing the interests of fast-growing districts because it benefits from the kind of fiscal framework that we see in British Columbia.

That was borne out during the contract bargaining sessions last year where the fast-growing districts ended up on strike. In the chamber, we had the spectacle of the Labour minister at that time standing in the assembly and advising us that, based on 34 settlements in places like Stikine and other areas that benefit mightily from this fiscal framework, that was a settlement pattern for districts like Surrey. That's the kind of woolly-headed thinking the districts have to deal with. When they approach Victoria there is not a shred of recognition that this funding formula is not meeting the needs of fast-growing districts. This was borne out by the government's assessment a year ago that, based on the settlement in 34 districts, the others had a benchmark in which to settle their contract demands. That, in a nutshell, explains why districts like Surrey and Vancouver went on a six-week strike, and we ended up back in this assembly on a Sunday to legislate them back to work. The same approach the government took to bargaining in the school system, which they finally addressed via legislation in the House, is being repeated with the funding formula. I predict for the minister that a number of fast-growing districts are going to follow Surrey to the exits when it comes to being members of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. They recognize the fact that some districts continue to benefit mightily from this funding formula, while others simply find that it cannot 

[ Page 11748 ]

meet their needs. I welcome the advice from the minister that the funding formula is being looked at, and that we are aware of the problem and taking definitive action. In the meantime the MLAs in Surrey continue to be called to emergency meetings.

Two years ago a delegation from the city of Surrey comprised of a broadly based group of people in Surrey of different political stripes who approach the education issue from different standpoints -- CUPE, the teachers' union, the board of trustees, PTA -- recognized that the funding formula was at the root of Surrey's problems. I point out to the minister that, from what I've heard in the committee today, it will continue to be a problem over the next two years. This will undoubtedly be a major election issue in Surrey in 1996, and so it should be, Madam Chair.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member says that I haven't been listening about the matter of the fiscal framework; he also talks about the number of portables. With respect to the fiscal framework, I have told him that I'm several months ahead of him on this issue. It is being changed. The task force is looking at it right now; it will be in place. A new distribution formula will be in place in time for the development of next year's budget. I've been listening quite well; I heard him before he said it.

The number of portables, my friend, is a capital issue. If we're going to reduce the number of portables, we have to build schools. It's not an operating issue; it's a capital issue. If we're going to build schools, then we are going to borrow money. If we are going to borrow money, we're going to increase the tax-supported debt of the province. Once again, I ask the member to stand in his place and tell me that he supports an increase in tax-supported debt in order to build vital education infrastructure for the children of British Columbia and of Surrey. I also point out that the members from Surrey in my party have been actively lobbying me for schools in their district over the last nine months since I walked in the door. The member opposite has yet to approach me once to lobby me for anything with respect to schools in Surrey. He has yet to identify for me a single capital project that he supports or thinks is needed. He has not mentioned it to me in the corridors, in the House or in my office, nor has he sent me a note, a line, an E-mail, a smoke signal or anything about education. If you are as interested in education as you are presenting yourself to be, then I suggest that first, you start to identify these issues to me far before the budgets are set in stone, and second, you stand in your place and say you support an increase in tax-supported debt to build schools in British Columbia.

W. Hurd: I will be only too happy to table the information presented to me by the Surrey Board of School Trustees. If I thought that cozying up to the minister in the hallway or sending him E-mail or anything else would make a difference, we would certainly have been happy to do it. I know that his predecessor was lobbied extensively by the same delegation I alluded to earlier in my remarks. They came here and met with members of the opposition and of the government. I agree that it was a previous minister who pointed out to the assembly that students were at times better off behind picket lines than they were in schools in the province. I understand that this is one of the reasons he has his current job as British Columbia's Education minister.

I pointed out to the minister that this information is available from the district. They have taken great pains to present it in binder form, and I urge him to read it. I suggest that would be far better than me trying to explain it to him in the hallway. I'll table this and hope that the minister has great bedtime reading tonight. I look forward to any comments he might have about the arguments put forth by the city of Surrey. Who knows? He might even have an opportunity to attend the next emergency meeting at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I thank the hon. member very much for the information, and I look forward to studying it in detail.

I will close my remarks with respect to the funding in Surrey by acknowledging that it is a severe challenge. I point out that starting from 1991-92, when we assumed responsibility, the enrolment growth in Surrey was 7 percent, and the block funding went up 13.6 percent. In 1992-93 the enrolment was 3.8 percent, and the block funding went up 7.9 percent. In 1993-94 it was 3.7 percent, but funding went up 5 percent. In the 1994-95 preliminary, enrolment went up 3.6 percent, but the funding went up 5.2 percent. Over that five-year period, enrolment growth has increased about 28 percent, but the change in funding to Surrey went up 52.6 percent, compared to only 34.9 percent provincewide.

This government is making every effort to overcome a stupendous challenge. Just before the member leaves, I'd like to give him one more opportunity to stand up and clearly put on the record that he supports the construction of schools in Surrey, even though that entails an increase in tax-supported public debt. This is one more opportunity for you, member, to put yourself on the record.

W. Hurd: I certainly couldn't turn down an opportunity like that to respond to a direct comment by the minister. As he well knows, it was his government's decision to take a very creative approach to capital financing on new construction in the province. They created, as I recall, a Crown corporation with the capacity to run up any amount of debt that would not be reported in a timely fashion to the people of the province through the Legislative Assembly. Capital debt is one thing, but the accurate and timely reporting of that debt, so the people of the province know exactly how much debt they're in, is as important an issue to raise at this time as the minister's rather simplistic challenge about increasing the amount of tax-supported debt.

We on this side of the House have never supported the Crown corporation model, which, as the minister has said, seeks to increase the amount of tax-supported debt without information about it being properly and duly available to the people through the normal estimates debate in the Ministry of Education. We understand the need to build school facilities, particularly in fast-growing districts like Surrey. I think there's a need to recognize that districts such as Surrey, by virtue of having to take on an increased percentage of the enrolment, face challenges with their capital budgets that aren't faced by other districts. That's all contained in the binder which I have tabled here in the committee.

I just think that the seven districts on the lower mainland that are experiencing rapid growth are, as I'm sure the minister knows, becoming increasingly frustrated with their lot. I'm concerned that the effect is going to be to discourage competent, sound people in our community with good ideas from becoming school trustees. The level of frustration that exists in some of those districts is extremely high at the moment, and they are concerned with the situation they face. I hope the minister will, at the earliest opportunity, avail himself of the chance to meet with the trustees in Surrey, Richmond, North Vancouver and those other districts that currently trail the list in almost every meaningful category.

[ Page 11749 ]

L. Stephens: We are about to move into the capital funding projects, and the remarks from the member for Surrey-White Rock are well spoken. I would encourage the minister to look through the material that has been passed on to him, because Surrey is indeed one of the faster-growing districts, as the minister knows, and they do have some very serious problems there.

The school districts provincewide have asked for $1 billion in capital funding for their new schools, and they've got roughly $340 million this year. One of the comments the minister made -- aside from: how much more do you want to borrow to build those schools? -- was that it would jeopardize the government's credit rating. He posed the question to the member for Surrey-White Rock: what would we do differently?

Well, one of the things we would do differently, which I stated in the opening remarks, is the fair-wage policy. It's our view that schools should be exempt from that policy, as they are for other projects.

Also, $53 million for a shell company is rather a dubious expenditure as well. So there are some choices that can be made through the broad government expenditure. And if there was a very high commitment for these schools.... The minister likes to say that there is, and I take the minister at his word. I'm sure he is very committed. As a matter of fact, I know he's committed to public education being publicly funded, certainly for the service and facilities that are required for the students.

I'm sure the minister is also aware of districts around the province like Surrey. There's Nanaimo where they've got 178 portables, and they've got to add more this spring. There are 47 schools in the district, and they have seven building projects in various stages of tendering and approval. I could go on, as I'm sure the minister knows. We've got another one in Victoria, View Royal Elementary, built in 1948 to accommodate 100 students, and they've now got 610 students, five portables and no playground. The list goes on. In Coquitlam there's Scott Creek Middle School and Gleneagle Secondary School -- another fast-growing area in the province.

[4:45]

Let's get to Abbotsford, and we'll do my own last. There's Abbotsford Senior Secondary, Delair elementary -- a new school -- and Rick Hansen Secondary, an addition. All of these new projects are in various stages of planning, tendering or completion. Probably the biggest difficulty is that.... The three phases: site acquisition, planning and construction-completion.... The districts have been advised that they can proceed with projects to the phase approved last year, provided they remain within the existing budget. If the project was in the planning phase last year and was anticipated to move to the construction phase in 1994-95, the district may complete only the planning phase. Essentially, the next step in the process has been frozen. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In general, we have changed the capital approval system from approving a project way back at the site acquisition or design phase all the way through construction. If there was a hang-up in design, site acquisition or site conditions for whatever reason, often the project would stay in the design phase for several more years than had been anticipated, so the capital funding that had been allocated to it was tied up for that period of time.

So we have sort of "disaggregated" the process. School boards now come for distinct approval for site acquisition or design or completion, and for each of those they know the rules. They are to put in for a project; if it is a design project, they put in for that. We anticipate that at some time to follow there will be an application for completion. But we first want to see them finish the design; we want to know they're ready to proceed to tender. Then they can apply for completion funds, and that application will be considered in light of all the other needs in the province and what we can afford. If approval is given, from that point we expect -- we insist -- that they stay within the budget they were given. If some truly extraordinary condition is encountered in the process of construction, they can apply for an amendment and, through an amendment procedure, can obtain additional funds if absolutely necessary.

L. Stephens: I have a few more questions on capital funding, but the member for Okanagan-Vernon wants to tidy up an area we have passed and asks if we will indulge him. That's fine with me.

L. Hanson: I couldn't help but listen to the previous discussion with great interest. I would be absolutely pleased to stand beside the minister and cancel the wonderful deal that was made on the Island Highway and the fixed-wage policy, and to use those funds -- about $500 million we would save -- for capital purposes and relieve the minister of the problem of increasing publicly funded debt. But that wasn't the reason I wanted the opportunity to ask the question, and I thank the member for her courtesy.

There seems to be an increase -- I'm not sure of this, and I'd like the minister's comment -- in the amount of dedicated funding as a percentage of the total budgetary process for the various schools. Of course, that dedicated funding is for various purposes: special education, native education, whatever -- but the school boards are expressing concern to me that they have less autonomy as a result of this to decide where the funding will go. Could the minister comment on if it is true that there is a larger percentage of dedicated funding, as they claim, and maybe provide some idea of what the change might be.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As two ex-Ministers of Transportation, I'm sure we could have an interesting debate on the Island Highway, but I cannot let one thing that you said slip by. If you have total labour costs in the order of $400 million in a $1.2 billion project, you cannot conceivably increase labour costs by $500 million through fair wages. Those numbers don't quite add up.

In the school system, we know what our unit costs are and what we allow, and we control the costs of schools through unit costs. If you look at them -- I'd be pleased to provide them to you -- you will not see any dramatic increase, nor will one occur as a result of fair wages.

With respect to your question on dedicated funds, we have targeted some funds. With respect to a cap in the administrative area, we've decided that no more than $302 million will be spent on administration throughout the province, and that is a cap. We've identified two other areas. In aboriginal education there's a floor that boards cannot spend less than a certain amount, and in special needs education the boards do the count, the categorizing and then send us the numbers. Based on those numbers, we supply a certain amount of money both for aboriginal and for special needs. All I'm saying to the boards is: after you have done the labelling and the counting, then we expect you to live up to your part of this arrangement and spend at least that much money on those target groups. It still leaves about 85 percent of the total school board budget unfettered in any way and to be spent totally at the discretion of the local school board.

[ Page 11750 ]

L. Hanson: I know we don't want to get into a discussion of the various aspects of capital financing, but I would like to make a wager with the minister on the cost of the Island Highway. I think it is estimated at $2 billion. If it is not at least 25 percent higher than that, I'll buy him a ticket to the Kamloops Blazers at the next championship, and the return would be.... I think we could settle that quite easily.

My question is on these targeted funds. Has there been a serious difficulty with school districts for the funds that are dedicated -- as I put it -- or targeted for a special purpose not being used for that purpose? Is that the reasoning behind the more rigid control of it?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm delighted to take you up on that wager, hon. member, and I will enjoy the game during the Memorial Cup championship that will be held at the new Riverside Coliseum in Kamloops at your expense next year at about this time.

L. Hanson: It won't be built by then, unfortunately.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is built.

With respect to the targeted amounts, there were some districts that were definitely budgeting far under the amounts they had applied for in some of these categories. Usually there was no problem in special needs. The districts were spending at least as much as they applied for. Some districts were underspending, and groups associated with special needs children were quite often asking why they had received so much money in their district to help these children, and the district did not seem to be spending it. So I've asked the districts to spend it.

The greater problem was with respect to aboriginal children, where large funds were received -- hundreds of thousands of dollars -- in some districts and nothing was explicitly budgeted for aboriginal instruction programs. Local bands approached me to complain that these funds were coming into a district and that they seemed to have no influence whatsoever on the board or the administration in the district to see that those funds would be spent on an initiative related to aboriginal instruction. So I put that floor in place so that a board must spent at least the amount of money that it claims from Victoria for purposes related to the funding.

L. Stephens: We'll go back to capital funding. We were discussing the three steps: site acquisition, planning and construction, and the move to a new cash flow system that appears to be coming from the ministry. I know districts were asking for a five-year plan. Could the minister expand on this new procedure he appears to be implementing?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We provide to the districts, in aggregate, a capital envelope of approximately $340 million. As you know, some of those projects are planning and some completion; a lot of minor projects are involved as well.

If it is a planning project, the district simply goes ahead and does it. If it's a completion project, they have a few hurdles to go through in the way of final approvals. Once these are received, we start to pay out the money for the construction of the school. Until such time as the final approvals are not obtained, the funds remain available centrally, so to speak, to meet demands in all districts.

L. Stephens: With regard to the planning process, I understand the school districts need authorization for each step of the process and that the district submits a capital plan to the ministry for consideration and they prioritize within that plan the particular projects of the district.

The difficulty that districts are having -- and I know the minister is aware of this -- is to make sure that the priority items of the districts are indeed priorities. Would the minister share with us and with the districts how the process is going to be different under the new cash flow scheme that is being brought forward, and what involvement, if any, B.C. 21 has in this process?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The system does not work on a cash flow basis; it works on a capital envelope basis. Cash flows as a result of the approvals process we go through. The boards submit to us their wish list, prioritized in terms of high, medium and low priority, for their major projects, let's say. The ministry receives all the information from all districts, then looks at prioritizing based on provincewide criteria and adds a provincial prioritization. They may both be high. A district may have what they deem to be a high priority, which on a provincewide basis might be a medium or even a low priority.

[5:00]

This year we prioritized on the basis of crowding and the need for spaces in our various districts. On this basis we started at the top of the list and went down it, with few exceptions for unique reasons, choosing the $340 million worth of projects that would fit within the envelope permitted by Treasury Board this year. We stayed with projects that by provincial standards were high priority. Any projects that were on the districts' list, which totalled $1.1 billion, and we are unable to get to this year, will of course be resubmitted in an updated five-year plan or capital plan next year. Then, considering the resources that the province is able to apply, we will go through the same process once again.

L. Stephens: Districts that had previous commitments from the ministry are now finding that those projects are not being advanced because of the criteria that the minister has just stated. So projects that have had site acquisition, site preparation, planning -- all of those projects that are in the....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Pipeline.

L. Stephens: Thank you. That's the word. They now find they can't proceed. All of the work and money that has been previously spent is now in limbo. What is the minister saying to these districts that find themselves in this position? What is to be done about it, if anything?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no schools on which the province has stopped construction. Schools proceeding on the final completion approval from a year, two years or three years ago are firm commitments of the government; all those projects are proceeding. There are some instances where perhaps a district applied for completion money last year, and it was in the capital envelope for consideration last year. However, it was ultimately not approved for completion for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's a site problem; sometimes it is a site acquisition problem; sometimes it's a quarrel in the community about where they want to put the school or how they want to proceed. In some instances it is because the total borrowing capacity of the province is stretched.

However, I allowed boards to look back at previously approved projects that had not yet started, where the spade wasn't in the ground, and I asked them: "Do you really want 

[ Page 11751 ]

to go ahead with those projects? If you decide that you will give up some previous approvals in order to advance to new, higher priorities, I'll be pleased to cooperate with you." Many districts, when they resubmitted their capital plans to me, said: "Yes, here are three, four or six projects that we had final approval to proceed on, and we're giving up that approval. Notionally, we're turning the money back to you." Then I allowed them to pick new projects that at least totalled the amount of money they turned back. That permitted them a reprioritization within their district. That may be partly what you are referring to.

L. Stephens: Yes, that was done. The districts have the option to reprioritize within that capital envelope. A lot of them have found that they've already spent the money on site acquisition and on planning. They were anticipating that they would receive the next step, which isn't happening. So they're saying: "We've spent all this money, we've done all this planning and now what do we do?" Nobody is arguing that the facility isn't needed, but a process that was moving along is now changed in midstream and has caught a number of these districts. Where the ability to reprioritize is there, yes, and where the capital funding envelope is there, yes. Those districts with those kinds of specifics projects are struggling.

What would the minister say to those districts that have already spent money on the projects I talked about? What do they do now? Are they going to have to spend money again in another year or two years to redo site preparation, for instance? I know that more than a few sites have had site preparation, and now it's not suitable because they don't have the ability to continue. That's money that has to be spent twice in many cases. I wonder what the minister has planned to alleviate this kind of problem. Will those particular projects then come to the priority level next year, and will the minister commit to the districts that find themselves in that position to do that? Will the ministry take those kinds of projects at a priority level for the next funding year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think there were extremely few projects provincewide -- a handful -- where some kind of site prep work might have been done in anticipation of getting approval to construct. But it's truly a very small number -- eight or ten, I'm told -- provincewide.

There are other instances, however, where a site has been acquired, plans are ready to go and the board is, so to speak, chomping at the bit to get on with construction. I've had to say to them: "I'm sorry, but the capital envelope this year is not big enough to accommodate you." They'll have to just hold their place for a year, reapply for completion money and then, depending on the capital envelope that I obtain and on the provincewide priorities that we are able to fund, they may well come into the capital envelope for the following year.

Your colleague from Surrey didn't take me up on my invitation, but I would certainly invite you also to support me in higher borrowing -- larger public debt -- in order to support the construction of schools. That includes the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of needs that are out there, which this year we were simply unable to fund, since we were trying to be as fiscally responsible as possible and hold down the total tax-supported debt. I believe that is a policy the opposition approves of and, in fact, is pushing us further on. So I would be delighted to hear you say that you fully support an expanded school construction program, because that is what our province needs.

L. Stephens: Well, I think I told the minister earlier how that could be accomplished, and I cited two examples. One was to exempt school construction -- and indeed a few other areas -- from the fair-wage policy, and the other suggestion was that the government should make some different choices on how they spend their money. One saving I can think of off the top of my head is the $53 million for a shell company. Those are two examples the government might consider when they're looking for new dollars.

With regard to the stand-alone seismic projects, we have one in Langley: H.D. Stafford. It's an old school that needs upgrading. They're three-quarters of the way through and running into all kinds of problems. I think anyone who has renovated a house knows the problems associated with renovation. You think it's going to cost $20,000, and it ends up costing $40,000. Part of the problem here is just that: the age of the building, the renovations, the seismic upgrading and all those kinds of issues.

Does the ministry have a policy on seismic projects, and what is the decision about seismic upgrading? What's the anticipated cost? What budget does it fall under here? Is this under the school funding budget?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, on your suggestion that we can somehow generate more school construction if we exempt schools from fair wages, I can only point out to you that our unit rates for school construction in 1994-95 represent a drop of about 4.9 percent this year over last for secondary schools and an increase of 4.8 percent on elementary schools. On average, 1994-95 school construction costs are lower than last year, so I reject the argument that fair wages are somehow greatly increasing the cost of schools, and if only we didn't do that, we would have a lot more money to build a lot more schools. Whether it's a decrease or increase, we're talking a few percent one way or the other, when what we really need is hundreds of millions of dollars.

As I've said, by the end of this year we will have spent $1.3 billion on new schools. The shell company you refer to, of course, has assets. It got some very valuable power-generating rights, and it was part of an accord that is tremendously important and saved many thousands of jobs for the people of the West Kootenays. You mustn't forget that as a benefit of what you have referred to as a shell company.

After all that, I've forgotten your original question.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Seismic, yes.

Things started out on the basis of granting stand-alone seismic projects. That is sort of a piecemeal way of attacking a huge problem, and perhaps not the wisest way. So the government took a step back to ask what a comprehensive seismic-upgrading policy would cost. It's not, of course, just our schools that are vulnerable, but our hospitals, our bridges, our old age homes, our prisons, our waterworks systems and many other things. An approximate cost to upgrade some 6,000 public buildings -- just public buildings -- across B.C. has been determined. The price tag would be approximately $6 billion.

The question then becomes one of priorities and of urgencies. Do we launch into a seismic upgrading to that degree in a comprehensive way? If we were to do that and borrow these funds in order to press ahead with it, would that borrowing of funds be blessed by the opposition party? Would they stand and say: "Yes, this is a necessary thing to do. We must increase tax-supported debt in order to protect 

[ Page 11752 ]

our children in schools and protect our citizens in hospitals"? I hope so, but I think what is necessary is a comprehensive, long-term project to accomplish this over a set period of time.

[5:15]

As we build schools now, of course, they meet the appropriate seismic codes. As we do major renovations in schools, we automatically upgrade them to meet the seismic code. The question is whether or not we want to do so-called stand-alone seismic, which can be disproportionately expensive for the long-term benefit received.

Having said all of that, many projects for seismic upgrading have been approved over the past several budgets, which boards have chosen not to proceed on. In fact, several boards turned back funds that had been earmarked for stand-alone seismic upgrade and turned their priorities to other areas. The opportunity for boards to use annual capital allowances to do seismic upgrades was there.

We also called upon boards this year to spend their capital reserves, in addition to reprioritizing. So all boards had the opportunity to proceed on the stand-alone seismic upgrades that they had had approved. Most of them, I must report to you, have decided to turn back funds. That is perhaps -- and I do not know this -- because they too sense that it's better to do it in a comprehensive, planned fashion over a period of time in conjunction with renovation and replacement rather than as stand-alone seismic.

L. Stephens: I'm sure that's true, and I'm sure the boards would look at it in that fashion and in a comprehensive manner. The question is: does the ministry have a long-term plan for seismic upgrading of school facilities in the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The government is in the process of putting together a long-term seismic upgrading plan. Education is a lead ministry involved, but it is a governmentwide initiative because the implications are governmentwide.

You asked a question last time that I forgot to answer, concerning H.D. Stafford in Langley. That has indeed been a troubled project, and it came about as a result of a staged or phased renovation. What the ministry promotes and wants to see is staged renovations being done in very discrete modules. When a phase is done, the school should be fully usable for an indefinite period of time. When the next phase occurs, the ceilings or walls are opened up and then completed, and the school is again ready for normal use.

What unfortunately happened in that project is that things got out of phase, and now there's a situation that has to be corrected. The school is very difficult to learn or teach in. We have quantity surveyors going out to try to assess exactly where this project went off the rails, and we will endeavour to get it back on the rails in the near future.

L. Stephens: The ministry has responded to this problem in Langley. Two weeks ago a team came out and had a look around. They will be reporting shortly, I understand, in an effort to have this school completed by September. Those of us in Langley appreciate the speediness of the response from the ministry, and we hope the required work will be ready in a fashion that's acceptable for students and teachers in September. I will be waiting with great interest to see the outcome of the review and the point when this will all be done. I will be keeping in touch to follow that process along.

The basic allocations of capital for planning and completion funds would be allocated to the boards. Are the boards going to be able to exercise control over the selection of these required projects within this envelope under the cash flow system you spoke of?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the next week or so boards will receive a letter from me, giving them their capital plan for this year. It will include approval to proceed with a planning study, and it varies, of course, from district to district. In some areas it would indicate that the capital completion project in your district will be considered for final approval this year. Then they have a few more hoops to jump through until they receive final approval from the ministry before they can let a contract. Once the contract is let, it flows from there. It's the responsibility of the district, with assistance from the ministry, to carry the project through to completion.

L. Hanson: I have a question on a specific capital project, a school in Vernon, and I don't suppose the minister is terribly surprised. We have a school there that was given money for planning, and that was completed. I believe the contract documents were authorized for the tendering process. The students were moved to another school that needed extensive renovations. I don't know whether it was condemned, but there was capital authorized for a new school. That was all completed. Subsequently, the ministry authorized the removal of asbestos and so on from the empty school in preparation for this construction project -- that was about a year ago, I believe -- but there were no funds for the completion of that project. They were advised that the ministry's new policy was dedicating capital funds to the provision of new space, as opposed to the renovation of old space. The problem here seems to be that they were halfway into the renovations, and then they were stopped. That is the difficulty -- the removal of the asbestos has made the school unusable. I don't know whether the minister would know of the specific one, but....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You almost need a chalkboard and a diagram to follow this one, but your explanation and your question are substantially correct. It is another example, not dissimilar from the Stafford situation in Langley, where a phased project was undertaken. Then they went into the school and started to tear out the asbestos. On opening up everywhere it was discovered that the problem was a little more than anticipated. Instead of having done it in discrete phases so that the site could, in engineering terms, be buttoned up and made usable, they made the whole site unusable by doing the staged work in a most unfortunate way.

That leaves the students and the families in a very unfortunate situation, because they are in another -- what I guess they view to be -- cast-off school, and they were to be there temporarily while the reno work was undertaken. They have requested again, in revisiting their capital plan, that I consider switching the funding to allow them to carry on with the Seaton project.

I'm in the final stages of deliberation on that and will be informing the board of my decision within a week, I would say. I certainly have it under consideration as a result of just thinking about the conditions the community is working under.

L. Hanson: I have just a very quick comment, and I again thank the member for the courtesy of letting me in. The minister has described the situation. It is gratifying to hear that it is on the table and is an issue that you are going to be deciding on shortly. You're absolutely right, in that the sense of the parents was that the old school, which is Fulton, was 

[ Page 11753 ]

not good enough, and they had to build a new school. Now, all of a sudden, the students are stuck in this old school that wasn't good enough and had to be replaced. So the minister is right on the nose with his observation about the concerns being expressed, and I look forward with great anticipation to his announcement in a week or ten days.

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little about the acquisition of school sites. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs circulated a discussion paper on that subject in November 1993. There had been some expectation that legislation would be coming forward this session to deal with it.

I see that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks granted an elementary school site to the Mission School District. The provincial government gave about $600,000 worth of Crown land. Could the minister share with the committee if there is a new government policy on site acquisition that has to do with Crown land? What is the ministry's policy on school site acquisition and Crown lands?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a long-established policy with respect to granting Crown land for public use. This is one example of many over the years, where school districts have been granted Crown land for schools. I don't know if that completely answers your question, but there is nothing new or different about the protocol. There has been a protocol in place with respect to Crown lands. If you have a question beyond that to clarify it, I would be pleased to take a shot at it.

L. Stephens: The discussion on acquiring school sites talked about a number of options other than Crown lands being granted for property valued. According to this, B.C. Lands gave $5 million to communities throughout the province in 1993. That was one way of making land available.

This particular discussion paper talks about a number of others, and I'll just read a little of what it says: "Land costs are increasing faster than the overall capital cost of schools." I think we all recognize that it is very important. A very high-cost part of building schools is the acquisition of land, particularly in rapidly growing communities where land prices are escalating so outrageously. In many cases those costs are prohibiting school boards from acquiring that land and sometimes the available school sites. There is a whole bunch of variables that can be very difficult and can add huge amounts of money to the building of schools.

[5:30]

There were a number of options. One was reservation of land for schools at the time of subdivision; one was using development cost charges -- imposed charges; and another was special district financing or bonus density zoning. I wonder if the minister is involved in this discussion. Could he share some of the decisions or policies, if any, and where the ministry may be going with regard to site acquisition for schools?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The matter of site acquisition is indeed a problem and deserves careful attention. My ministry has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in order to develop legislation for site acquisition. We have had instances, even in recent years -- the Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam comes to mind -- where Crown land was sold off with no reservation of school sites, and now we, with the public purse, have to turn around and buy back at a much higher cost land that was just virtually given away. It is really a shame.

I do believe there ought to be an orderly way to acquire sites in new developments for schools. Whether it is a direct land reserve or a small development of a few dozen homes, there should be a development site charge that goes into a funding pool, which would permit the acquisition of a site. The sites should be identified as early as possible so that we don't need to buy up developed land. The district could still use moneys from the pool to buy undeveloped land. All of that will be coming forward -- I don't think in this legislative session but in the next -- in amendments to the act to permit that.

L. Stephens: I didn't quite hear the beginning. You talked about the pool of funds. Where would that pool of funds come from? Who would contribute? How would they be contributed? Would it be from general revenues of the province into a special school acquisition fund? What kind of structure is the minister referring to here?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I was speaking of legislation that could be coming forward in the next session. The intention is that a developer would supply land for a school site if it were a very large development. If it were a whole number of smaller developments, it would be logical to supply cash in lieu of land. That fund would then build up to the point where the district had sufficient funds to acquire a site. If care were taken through the official community plan to make sure that site is identified well in advance before any development occurs on it, that would, of course, keep the final price of the site down.

I'm wondering, Chair, if we should, at this point, rise, report substantive progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:35 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada