1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 5
[ Page 13627 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Committee A, Ministry of Education estimates; in Committee B, Ministry of Attorney General estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 17: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
J. Dalton: I will start off by continuing the line of questioning on the family maintenance enforcement program that we adjourned with yesterday. I understand there may also be other members who wish to pursue this topic.
The Attorney General will recall that I was quoting from a letter from Mrs. Susan Roth of Port Alberni. I spoke with Mrs. Roth this morning; she was very pleased that the points she so articulately made in her letter were being used. I don't say that just because I want to make somebody feel happy that they're getting recognition. As I said yesterday, I think it's important that these viewpoints be heard, which express the frustration that many people have with the enforcement process. I wish to continue and make a few other references from that same letter.
There's something here that we touched upon yesterday, and probably on previous days, about the family justice reform centres. Mrs. Roth makes a very good point, and I wish to read this into the record:
"To avoid the expense of the courts and the unfair and unequal treatment the father receives, I believe an administrative intervention process applied before and separate from the FMEP could serve [as] a fair solution. Is there a place for that within these new family justice centres?"
That's the particular point that Mrs. Roth advances. I think we've probably canvassed that adequately already. I will ask the Attorney General once more: is the point she's making well taken? Is there room within these pilot projects to help the controversy that surrounds the FMEP in some cases?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer is yes; her point is well taken. As I understand it, it's a point that argues for resolution by mediation as opposed to resolution by court order and arbitrary enforcement through FMEP. We prefer to have these issues of custody and access and maintenance payments resolved in a cooperative, mediative framework, and the family justice centres are designed to do just that. The FMEP is an option of last resort, in effect. Obviously, many people do not enrol in FMEP, because they have voluntary arrangements that work. If we could organize it through the family justice centres to the point where FMEP were no longer necessary, I would be delighted.
J. Dalton: That's the response I expected to get, because the Attorney General and I always make similar responses in regard to this. In the long run, if pilot projects like this are properly implemented, and if there is proper fallout, I think they will address.... They will not address all of the issues. It goes without saying that anytime you have a disruption in a family, there are going to be adverse spinoff effects. The more we can all address non-confrontational mediation to resolve family disputes in other ways, the happier everyone will be.
There are a few other points that Mrs. Roth makes in her letter. I don't think we need to dwell on all of them too much. She goes on in her letter to complain about the attachment process. She feels that FMEP is rather heavy-handed in the way it sometimes goes about trying to enforce maintenance orders, and I can assure the committee that she is not the only person who has expressed these complaints to me. I'm sure other members have probably heard similar concerns in their own ridings.
For example, Mrs. Roth points out that when dealing with attachments on Workers' Compensation, bank accounts, etc.: "These frequently used notices of attachment do not require judicial review." The point she's making there is that these things are perhaps made rather arbitrarily. I think what she's hinting at there is that perhaps we should be considering some way that these processes, if they are being used, can be done in as objective a manner as possible, as opposed to the confrontation that is sometimes created.
The Attorney General will recall that yesterday I made some opening comments from this letter about the difficulties that her husband faced in seeking legal advice. He, of course, was invited to go back to court to get a maintenance order revised, yet he didn't have the opportunity, necessarily, for legal advice in that environment. Perhaps I could suggest to the Attorney General that if these processes are used on a continuing basis -- and of course they will be -- we might consider some way to review the process so that people like Mrs. Roth are not being upset unnecessarily.
Maybe the Attorney General wishes to respond to that first. There is another point about the cost that's attached to these notices of attachment. Many people are expressing extreme disappointment at the fact that they're invited to pick up the tab, so to speak, for the attachment process -- which, of course, is something that is added over and above the actual maintenance payment itself that these people have been ordered to pay. In most cases -- obviously not in all, but in most -- the people I hear from are more than willing to cooperate, but they're finding that the entire program and process is overwhelming them.
I think I might add that the more we can advise people, in as objective a manner as possible, that this is the process and that we're here to help, not to hinder.... I think that right now many people feel that the process is hindering them in their personal lives and that it is not being helpful. I'll just leave that. If the Attorney General has some comments, then we can cover some other things.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The easiest solution to all of this is for people who owe money to support their kids -- for them to pay. None of this would be a problem and the member wouldn't get any letters if people would honour their obligations. People, usually men, are in situations where they have
[ Page 13628 ]
chosen to father children. Then in some cases, unbelievably, they walk away from those responsibilities. If they did not walk away from their responsibilities, we wouldn't need this program. They do.
The program doesn't immediately attach orders to collect the money. The very first step is to ask very politely for payments to be made. It's only after there is clear difficulty, in having people who have families to support but who refuse to meet their obligation, that we get to this stage. I don't have a lot of sympathy for it.
The hon. member should know I get letters, too -- probably more than most members of the House on this subject, because people are inclined to write to me about it. In my pursuing of this issue, I'm convinced that the FMEP program deals with these situations with a great degree of sensitivity and awareness and in a fair way. Occasionally, a mistake can be made.
I think the volume of correspondence that MLAs got -- at least, that I got in my office and my constituency office, which has tapered off dramatically in the last year -- primarily had to do with people having difficulty in contacting a voice, somebody to talk to. I think we've resolved those problems. It used to be that you just couldn't talk to anybody, and now that, from all accounts, is largely resolved.
[10:15]
No doubt there will be an error made here and there, and members will hear. But when we process 20,000 to 30,000 situations a year, to have a couple of thousand letters would not be unusual. I suspect the opposition critic has not had a couple of thousand -- probably not even a couple of hundred -- letters on this subject, which would be only about 1 percent of the volume. I don't want to minimize that, and I don't want to minimize the pain that some people feel as a result. But the fact is that this is a good program; it's the best in the country. It is meeting the needs of families who otherwise would not have the financial assistance they need and who are often forced onto the public scheme through social assistance because the people who really should be paying the shot don't pay it.
L. Reid: In that we're on the family maintenance enforcement program -- and certainly my colleague has talked about the number of letters he receives -- my question specifically would be about liens placed on personal property. Once they are put in place and once the arrears have been covered off, how long is it, in terms of the policy, that those liens stay on the personal property? I'd be very interested in that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had this debate in the House last year when we did the amendments. In fact, it was the Reform caucus who pursued the issue fairly vigorously because they didn't like the direction we were going. The lien stays in place as long as the obligation continues.
L. Reid: Could I ask the minister to define obligation. I have two cases presently before me where the individuals are now fine. They have completed all their payments; in fact, they have postdated cheques for the family maintenance enforcement program, but the liens remain on their properties. Is that policy, and is there a time line around that -- will it be one year, two years, three years? I would be interested.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's the same situation as a mortgage. The member's mortgage, no doubt -- certainly mine -- is up to date. In fact, it's taken off my account by way of preauthorization, but I still have a mortgage attached to my house, which the bank can deal with at any point if I fail in the future to meet my obligations. It's the same principle.
L. Reid: Minister, I understand the principle, but when you refer to "as long as the obligation" exists, is that as long as the children are of the age when they would receive maintenance, or once the debt has been cancelled, if you will? And once they are up to date and there are postdated cheques for the family maintenance enforcement program, do they have the ability to have that lien removed? This is not a mortgage situation; this is simply a guarantee around whether or not they intend to make future payments. And if indeed the slate is clean and they're going forward, is there a time line around when that lien can be removed, or is it going to be when the children reach a particular age?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A postdated cheque doesn't mean anything; you can cancel the postdated cheque. The fact is that as long as there is a court order requiring payment, then the lien will continue. When the kids have grown up and there's no longer an obligation for whatever reason -- the debt and the future debt are met -- then the lien disappears as well.
L. Reid: Because I have a need to communicate this clearly to my constituents.... The liens that now exist on their properties will stay in place until their children are no longer receiving maintenance through the family maintenance enforcement program. Was that the minister's comment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, and the House debated that thoroughly last year when we debated the amendments.
J. Dalton: On that same issue, Mrs. Roth also takes exception to the registration against the title to the land. In fact, she points out that the payer need not be in arrears or have ever defaulted in payments for this policy to be applied. Quite frankly, I think it is a bit heavy-handed if the FMEP is using that process as more of a club than as a realistic enforcement measure. Over here, we don't have any quarrel with the fact that that's an effective method to enforce payment if, indeed, the person is in default. But, quite frankly, I don't think it is valid for the program to be placing liens on people's property when they are not in default. However, perhaps it is more of a side issue than the main point I wish to raise next.
I see in passing that Mrs. Roth also makes an interesting comment on this same problem about attachment: is this an enforcement action or a control action? In some cases, I think it is control that is being exercised, and not enforcement from an objective point of view.
The Attorney General commented on the last question I raised about the people who were in default. But I would remind the Attorney General that in the case of the letter I am quoting from -- and this is not the only example -- this is a second-family situation. The father is trying the best he can to honour his obligations to his first family, but of course we also have to take into account that there is a second-family experience. You cannot just abandon one, so to speak, in favour of the other, and it's a difficult situation in itself. I think we have to put these things in context. I appreciate that the Attorney
[ Page 13629 ]
General must get, as think he said, thousands of complaints -- certainly hundreds -- about the program, and of course it is the people who for one reason or another will be registering concerns. But I think the concerns of certainly the people who have been in touch with me -- not all of them, I must admit, but many of them -- are very valid concerns.
The other point Mrs. Roth made -- I have another letter as well that reinforces this -- is about the cost of these notices of attachment. The FMEP charge a fee if they issue a notice of attachment. And in the case, for example, of the federal government being involved, they also charge a fee. I have another letter here. Coincidentally, a constituent of mine just last week raised the very same issue that this person, who happens to live in Terrace, has written to me about. The issue is the fact that "attachments have been put on his federal income tax" -- she's referring to the friend she's writing about -- "Canada pension, unemployment insurance and even his social security pension, which he is not eligible for yet. And then he's been advised...." This constituent in my own riding whom I referred to has also informed me of this. He was then informed by the federal people that there will be a cost of $405 that he's going to have to pay in order to process his attachment.
I appreciate that this is a federal matter, but I think perhaps the Attorney General could help the committee if he could put into perspective how these fees are established and whether, in fact, they are fairly processed. It turns out that the $405 being imposed by the federal government is an $81-per-year fee times five. They're charging a five-year attachment process. Why should somebody have to pay that kind of money when they may not be in default five minutes from now, let alone five years from now? Perhaps we could get some advice from the Attorney General on these costs that are being attached over and above the actual maintenance payments themselves.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't speak for why the federal government operates in that particular manner. It may be that it would cost them more than $81 for the paperwork, and they try to minimize the cost to the taxpayers by doing five years' worth at once.
L. Fox: The topic we're on presently interests me a great deal. The Attorney General will remember that we had a great debate last year at the time the legislation was brought forward. While I was supportive of much of the intent of the legislation, I had a lot of concerns. The question I have for the Attorney General.... In the case of an action by a claimant against a spouse or an individual responsible, where a lien is placed on a vehicle or a home, it's my understanding that if it has been proven in court that the lien has been filed in error, that individual still has to sign off the lien so that it can be removed. Could the Attorney General confirm that for me?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't, without getting advice from people who are involved in the day-to-day activities of the system. So that my staff who are listening can hear it, if I understood the question, it was: if a lien had been attached in error and the courts declared it to have been done in error, why does the individual have to sign it off? I'll get an answer for the member later.
L. Fox: As a little more background, so that I don't mislead the Attorney General, this is a case where a common-law couple lived together, a child was born and they then parted. Blood tests proved that the individual she lived with was really not the father of that child. The individual (a) paid support for a number of months, including having his account attached through family maintenance; and (b) had liens attached to his home and his vehicle and now is unable to have them removed because the individual who caused the action refuses to sign them off. The reason I ask this question is that I am attempting to help this constituent resolve this issue, and I'm not sure what course I must take in order to do that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has drawn this to my attention in this way now. If it's satisfactory to the member, I would undertake to reply to him in writing about the particular case. I think there's probably enough information that we can identify the situation and get back to him as quickly as we can.
J. Tyabji: I would like to turn the debate over to the situation of new jails in the province. I apologize for my cold; I hope you can still understand what I'm saying.
As the Attorney General is aware, there are at least two proposals for new jails -- one in the Winfield area of Kelowna and one in the Port Coquitlam area -- that I'd like to talk about today. The first question is: what is the status of the proposal for the new jail in Winfield?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that it's still in the rezoning process with the city of Kelowna, and they have yet to make a final decision in respect of zoning.
J. Tyabji: Is the Attorney General aware that when the advisory planning committee of the city of Kelowna had a public hearing they came up with the recommendation that the city not proceed with the jail?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that the advisory planning committee didn't recommend approval because of the process that had been followed, as opposed to not recommending approval because of the site per se. In other words, it's my understanding that the APC didn't have a problem with this site.
[10:30]
J. Tyabji: Certainly the residents that I talked with.... I wasn't at the committee hearing because I was in Kelowna at a different meeting. But from the news that I've received afterwards and from talking to the residents, it was the site. As the Attorney General is aware, the site is in very close proximity to the schools; it's in the middle of the Winfield community. It happens to be at the highest end of a panhandle, so it's within the jurisdiction of the city of Kelowna, although it is in the community of Winfield. Lake Country has just incorporated; in fact, on Saturday they elected their new municipal council, and there are members of that council who are strongly opposed to that site. Is the Attorney General planning to proceed, or is it the Attorney General's understanding that the jail is still going to proceed? It is the impression of the community that the jail is a dead issue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding, first of all, that the member is correct that there are some residents of
[ Page 13630 ]
Winfield -- and, in fact, probably some residents in Kelowna -- who live close by the site and who are opposed. That's a different situation than the question the member asked me, which was the position of the APC. The APC, while it was concerned about the process, was not opposed to the site.
What's happening at the present time is that ministry officials are continuing to meet with residents in the area to try to deal with concerns that may exist. Clearly, it's in the public interest that this facility be located in that area, and by that I mean in an area between Kelowna and Vernon, as this is. From all our ability to determine best sites, this is a good site, and we're going to continue to work with the residents to see if we can mitigate the concerns that they may have.
J. Tyabji: I should put on the record that I did not agree with the Attorney General's assessment that the advisory planning committee took issue with the process. All the argument was on the basis of the site location, and although I think there's general agreement that there's the need for a prison in the Okanagan, there are many, many other sites that are not within a stone's throw of an elementary school and across the street from a mobile home park, as this site is.
The Attorney General should be aware, as well, that Holiday Park is very close by, which is a large resort that puts through thousands of people every year. That will seriously impact their ability to attract people -- the fact that the prison is located there. Whether the Attorney General is going to argue that the prison won't have an impact.... The fact is, it will. There have been newspaper advertisements, already, from real estate agents and companies that are advertising that people should locate on the west side, because there's going to be a prison in Winfield, and that you don't want to live near a prison. So even if the Attorney General might say that logic would dictate there won't be an impact, there's an impact right now, just with the proposal.
The school has come out strongly against that location. That location is what the residents are concerned about, not whether or not there's a prison. In fact, I believe I had stated fairly strongly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- and, I think, in dealing with the Attorney General's office -- that the people of Lake Country are fairly progressive, and they recognize that if our social contract dictates that we're going to incarcerate people, we have to have facilities for it. But you don't put them right beside an elementary school and across the street from a mobile home park. In fact, the community plan for that area is to expand the residential growth right near the prison.
The panhandle issue is one that we were trying to deal with, because the people who live in that community do not retain jurisdiction over that part of their community, which is a great frustration for them. However, they made their presentation to the advisory planning committee that that site is not suitable, and the advisory planning committee has recommended to the city -- and, as I understand it, the city council and the mayor are taking that recommendation seriously -- that the prison not proceed. It is the site that is definitely the issue in this debate in the community.
The question that I have is: who drew up the criteria for the site, because there were quite a few things that were listed, one being that it has to be within a half-hour drive from the new law courts? Who drew up the criteria, and are those criteria consistent throughout the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The criteria are established by the corrections branch. We then advise BCBC of the needs that we have, and BCBC goes out and does a property search. That's what happened in this case. The criteria were established in July last year, and for the members' benefit and for the people who live in the area who may want to read the Hansard report of this exchange, I'll indicate what the criteria are.
Travel time from the Kelowna law courts is not to exceed 30 minutes. The site is preferably to be situated between North Kelowna and Vernon en route to the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, to deal with the sheriff's transfers issues, and preferably on industrial land away from residential areas. There should be a minimum of 20 acres, with a topography allowance of ten acres for the building footprint and two acres for exercise fields. Minimum setbacks are 75 feet for all buildings and fields. This should not be land in the agricultural land reserve. There should be nearby services for three-phase power, water and gas, plus nearby health and emergency services. The site should be accessible to contractors who provide program services, suitable for inmate programs and work programs, and accessible to public transport within a quarter of a mile for intermittent weekender inmates who may not be licensed to drive and for visitors. There should be easy access to Highway 97 or 92C to transport accused persons and inmates to and from court and other correctional facilities.
Those were the criteria we gave to BCBC, which began its search, identified an area and applied to the city of Kelowna for the various approvals. I understand that the city will be considering the issue over the next three months or so when they look at the various time lines. So it's now in the hands of the elected officials in Kelowna, and we will listen carefully to what they have to say. We will continue to discuss the issues with the community and do our best to relieve any anxieties that may exist.
J. Tyabji: If the Attorney General would like to relieve any anxieties that might exist, the greatest way to do that would be to move the site. There are other sites which fit all the criteria that have been listed. In addition, I would hope that one of the criteria would be that it not be adjacent to high schools or elementary schools, as this one is. This is very close to the community centre, and that's at the heart of this issue.
There are two precedents that the people of Lake Country do not want to set for the province. One is that another jurisdiction -- the city of Kelowna in this case -- puts a correctional centre in the middle of their community. That is a precedent they do not want to set. I had a meeting on Friday night with an umbrella group of residents' associations that included representation from Lake Country. It was unanimous: even the people who are not from Lake Country do not want to see a correctional centre that close to an elementary school or a high school.
The second precedent that is important is that, even though Lake Country is its own municipality, it has no jurisdiction over this prison. The city of Kelowna.... The site that has been chosen is at the top end of a panhandle. It could not be closer to the border between Kelowna and Lake Country, yet it is right in the middle of Winfield's centre. It is within the community of Winfield, and they have no control over it. If it were up to the new Lake Country council, that prison would definitely be a dead issue. As I understand it after having talked to some of the elected representatives, they don't think it's going to proceed.
[ Page 13631 ]
For everybody's sake, why would we not take those criteria and find one of the other sites? A number of them fit all the criteria: they are in the Lake Country area, they are fully serviced and they're half an hour from the law courts. I don't understand why it's that particular site, especially on the jurisdictional question.
The Attorney General must understand how difficult it is for people who live in a community to look across the street and know they cannot have any say on something as important as a correctional centre going in across the street. He has to understand that this is something that really bothers people. It's one of the things at the heart of the issue, especially when those people's children go to the school that is so close by. They still have no say over this prison that is going to be built by the province and the city of Kelowna, if the city allows the rezoning. If the Attorney General understands that, I'd like to know why he would proceed. Why would the province proceed with a proposal that is clearly so distasteful to the people who will have to live with this prison if it goes ahead?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This site is the first choice; it's the best choice. There are very few sites.
Our officials will meet with the newly elected Lake Country council. They haven't had an opportunity to do that yet, obviously; it just happened on the weekend. We will continue to meet with the people who live in that area, particularly as represented by their new council. I understand what the member is saying. I understand the fact of the geography and the relationship between Lake Country and the outskirts of Kelowna. We will do our best, as I said earlier, to mitigate the concerns. We'll have the meetings. At the moment, this is our choice. We will proceed with the discussions; I will keep myself informed about them. I know the member's view and the views of many people who live in the immediate neighbourhood.
We'll continue to do our best to meet the greater public need, which is for a properly located facility, on one hand, and the concerns of people who live in the immediate area, on the other hand. We have to balance those needs, and we'll do our best to do so in a sensitive way. That's the commitment I can make today.
J. Tyabji: I don't know if the Attorney General understands how angry people get when they say repeatedly that they don't want something and that they're prepared to work towards a solution that suits everyone, and they hear: "Well, that's okay. We'll continue to meet with you." They don't care whether you meet with them or not, if you're not going to change your mind. If the Attorney General is absolutely set on that site, then continuing to meet with them to try to placate their concerns is going to make them angrier. They are dead set against it. They live there; they can see where the site is; they don't want it there.
There are other sites. I disagree with the assertion that there were very few to choose from. There are many sites to choose from, many that would be a lot less expensive than the site that has been selected.
That's another thing. If we could get off the safety concern and the back yard concern.... I should say that this is not a NIMBY issue -- not a "not in my back yard." It's not in anyone's back yard. Nobody wants a prison in their back yard. And prisons don't need to be built in people's back yards.
We have the Brenda minesite which is an option, which is fully serviced, a secure site which is there -- and the Attorney General is saying no. That fits most of the criteria; it's within half an hour. If not that site, there are many sites in Lake Country. The reason I know is that when this proposal first came to my attention, we sent information to the Attorney General's office on the other available sites that fit all the criteria -- that were closer, in fact, than anything like a Brenda minesite -- and that were other options where the people of Lake Country would actually have a vote and a say.
In this case, not only is it in their back yard, but the bottom line is that the taxes or the grants-in-lieu are going to the city of Kelowna anyway. You can't even make an argument that: "Here's an incentive; it's going to contribute to your tax base." It won't.
There's absolutely no reason for the Attorney General to keep meeting with people if his staff are going to just try to convince them of something they fundamentally disagree with. They don't want it there. They'd work to find a better solution.
I should say, too, that one of the comments that came up at Friday's residents' associations meeting was about the way the correctional centres are structured right now and the way they are spending their money. I'm sure that some of the other debaters in this debate have talked about correctional reform. Throughout the province there's a call for significant correctional reform.
If we ever got off the debate of the fundamental difference that the people of that area have with this proposal -- if we could find a better site -- we would then get on to the debate about what the money is being spent on and how it's being set up -- and how angry some of them are to see that the facilities in the correctional centre are better than some of the facilities at the high school. The high school has been lobbying for a long time to get some funding for a community centre, and some of the facilities proposed for the correctional centre are better than that. I doubt that they're going to be encouraged to make that a shared-use facility, actually. That is very annoying. It really is angering some of the residents' associations that the facilities that seem to be available to people who are incarcerated are better than some of the facilities offered to the youth who are nearby and have a lot of time on their hands, nowhere to go and nothing to do. That's a different debate. If we could get off the debate of the site -- clearly, it doesn't seem like we're going to get anywhere with that today -- then we would get on to that debate, because that's an important debate as well.
The last question I have then is: in the event of the city of Kelowna refusing the rezoning, what is the next step for the province?
[10:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The next step would be to consider our options. I can't say anything more than that, because we would have to look at what the options are and make some decisions based on that.
The member cites the Brenda Mines location. We talked about that in these estimates in the House last week. There are a variety of reasons why that site is rejected, not the least of which is that it's at least $142,000 extra to operate each year at that site -- not to speak of how you get there on a city bus and those kinds of questions. That site is just not on.
[ Page 13632 ]
The other point I'll make is that the member said you just can't keep on meeting with people. We haven't met with the Lake Country council yet, given that they were just elected on Saturday. I think we need to have our first meeting with them, and I want that to happen before I say anything further.
J. Tyabji: I think the Attorney General should know, if he doesn't already, that it's the same people ministry staff have met with before. They're community activists, and they've all been elected. I think it's an excellent indicator of Winfield. Winfield is a very cohesive community, and their community leaders are now in council. I'm glad that they're better organized. Unfortunately, they don't have jurisdiction over this site anyway.
I'd like to move to the proposed jail for Port Coquitlam. The first question is: why is it that the criteria for the Winfield jail, which were set at a roughly half-hour drive, are different from the criteria for the Port Coquitlam jail, which says ten minutes, preferably five minutes, from the law courts?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The primary answer to that is that Port Coquitlam is a remand centre, and the Okanagan facility would not hold remand.
J. Tyabji: As I understand it, there would be some components of a prison. Is that incorrect? This is just a remand centre? This is not going to be a prison proposal?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer is that there would be a significant number of beds at Port Coquitlam which would be remand, as opposed to a very small capacity at the Okanagan facility. Obviously, when you have a remand centre, you need to be close to the court facilities because that's the connection. The ideal situation is to have the court upstairs. You want them integrated as much as possible, such as we obviously have in Surrey.
J. Tyabji: I'm going to read into the record one at a time some questions for the Attorney General that have come from some residents of the area. The first is: why is the Attorney General's office purchasing private land, which is a great expense to the taxpayer, instead of using provincial land?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer is that there was no Crown land that was suitable or which met the criteria in that area.
J. Tyabji: A follow-up to that, then: is the only reason for the criteria being different for this prison remand centre and for the Kelowna or Winfield prison remand centre that there will be a different proportion of remand beds to prison beds?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Another reason for this is that the Port Coquitlam facility will be a secure facility, and the Okanagan centre will be what is described as an enhanced open facility, which leads to different criteria -- different needs and different program activities, which all have an effect on the criteria.
J. Tyabji: I will then ask, as a point of clarification on the "enhanced open" definition: how does that break down as far as beds go? As I understand it, there are going to be eight dangerous offenders and 40 maximum-security in the Winfield proposal.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This stuff gets complicated for those of us who don't work full-time in corrections, and I include myself in this as much as I do the member. The Okanagan facility will have 147 bedrooms to accommodate 168 remanded persons and offenders, as I indicated earlier. It will be designed to allow for a capacity increase to 200. It is defined as an enhanced open custody centre, with a secure area within the complex. In other words, the security for this kind of category is a perimeter security -- the fence security. But within the facility, which is open internally, there will also be a smaller secure area for a limited number of inmates -- perhaps up to 30 -- who require a higher degree of security within this enhanced open centre which has a perimeter security fence. I think I've got that right.
J. Tyabji: Could the Attorney General give me a breakdown with respect to the 168 -- how that breaks down into dangerous offenders, maximum security and minimum security?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The approximately 30 beds that would be a secure resource are for remand and the more dangerous sentenced offender, but the really difficult remand individuals will still go to Kamloops, which is a more secure facility than this one is designed to be.
J. Tyabji: So roughly 130 beds will be minimum security?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the term is open.... I think the member and I are on the same wavelength here. The 130 beds are going to be enhanced open, not secure, inside the facility. In other words, there will be a fairly open atmosphere within the facility, but it will be secure on the perimeter. But there will be 130 that are more open internally and 30, roughly, that are more secure internally. Those more secure internally are for remand and the more difficult of the inmates.
J. Tyabji: I am not sure if I am clear on this, but to what extent is there going to be federal jurisdiction or any prisoners who may be convicted on federal counts in this centre? Or will there be any provisions for that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Other than the fact of the potential of remand becoming a federal responsibility following a court decision, there are not likely to be any federal prisoners housed in this facility. I think there were two in Kamloops in the last year. There's not likely to be any federal capacity or any contract arrangements in there. I might just say, in addition, that the advantage of having the facility designed this way is also to take some pressure off the Kelowna RCMP lockup, which is now housing people who really shouldn't be in that kind of facility.
J. Tyabji: If we could go back to Port Coquitlam, I note that the local residents have sent a note with respect to the first question, asking about purchasing private land instead of going to provincial land. They say that the prison remand centre proposed is in an industrial park, and that this private land was to be slated for a ten-unit industrial strata building, which would have generated a lot of tax income for municipal and provincial governments. The highest taxes paid in Port Coquitlam are from industrial parks. They believe that there is provincial land in Winfield that could have fit the criteria, particularly if the criteria were changed slightly. Instead of it
[ Page 13633 ]
being five to ten minutes from the courthouse, it could be, as in the Kelowna case, closer to half an hour. In that instance, there would have been an option other than the industrial land. The second question is: why was part of the Riverview complex not considered as a possible site?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam area, Riverview was looked at. There were some operating-cost issues that worked against that particular site. There may well have been other local concerns in terms of how local people would have reacted to that. I suspect that the mail on my desk on that issue might have been stronger than it is on the local issue. I'm looking at the MLA, and I think that may be the case. Further to that, we are still involved in discussions with the community in Port Coquitlam about this site. If there are other sites that are comparable and meet the criteria, then we're always open to that. We'll be involved in those discussions.
I think it was in the House the other day that I said that Port Coquitlam has done very well by this government. At a time when it was very, very difficult to find capital money, we found capital money for a new courthouse in Port Coquitlam. I think the residents there, who have been very well served by the decision to build a new courthouse, should accept that part of their obligation for getting a benefit is to take this resource as well. Some of them see this as not being a benefit, but all those people who want to lock everybody up must see this as a benefit of some kind.
J. Tyabji: Some of the residents that I've talked to say that the land that is currently owned by the provincial government in Riverview would have a lower cost. Apparently, the proposed prison land in Port Coquitlam was assessed at $1.6 million, and the purchase price is approximately $4 million. I'm not sure if that's correct; this is what I have in my notes. There could be a considerable savings in terms of capital cost by locating on the Riverview lands. I don't know what the operational cost breakdown was or if there was a cost analysis done. The fact that Riverview is obviously being downsized.... There are some facilities there. If the Minister of Health has something else in mind for Riverview, then we'd sure like to hear about it in his estimates.
What I find interesting is that the Port Coquitlam facility is estimated at a capital cost of $56 million, and the Kelowna one is, I believe, sitting at a capital cost of $20 million. Could the Attorney General let us know if those are the approximate capital costs of those? If so, is there a difference in size?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Secure facilities cost a lot more than open facilities. That's the answer to that question.
J. Tyabji: Is the Port Coquitlam one to be secure because it's going to have a higher proportion of remand? Is that why? If so, could we have the number breakdown on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's both as a result of higher numbers of remand and of housing more difficult inmates.
J. Tyabji: Could the Attorney General give us the number of beds and how it will break down as far as who will be occupying them?
[11:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a precise number of how many beds there will be. It will be 200, with a capacity to go to 300, and there will be a mix, as I said earlier, of remand and offenders. It would be higher-risk offenders who are housed there, and there would be a higher number of remand there than would be the case in the Okanagan.
J. Tyabji: Have there been any studies by the Attorney General's office on other remand or prison centres that are located either in industrial parks within a town centre or in residential areas?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know what the member means by "studies," but the branch prefers industrial sites; there are a number of advantages to that. I have to suggest to the member that she visit the Surrey Pretrial Centre, which is in the public safety building-municipal hall complex in Surrey. The Surrey Pretrial Centre directly abuts a residential area, and I understand there has been no impact on housing prices in that neighbourhood.
J. Tyabji: I don't know the details of that; I don't know if there are 170 beds there or if there are all the other facilities....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General is saying yes. I'd be interested in that information and what the process was ahead of time, and whether or not the property values have changed -- and, of course, whether that's something that's reflected in the general market or not. I can assure the Attorney General that the proposed site in Winfield is having a direct impact on both the residential and commercial ventures in that area; in fact, there may not be a future viability for Holiday Park if the prison goes ahead. Whether that's because of public perception or not, the fact is that the effects of it are very real.
I'm curious to know if there has been a policy decision taken to locate remand centres or prisons within populated areas as opposed to slightly outside them, because both these proposals are currently for densely populated areas.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In fact, both of these proposals are moving away from the densely populated areas. If you look at where Victoria, Surrey and Vancouver facilities are located, we're right in the middle of the cities in those cases. And in both the Okanagan and Port Coquitlam situations, we're moving away from downtown. The ideal situation in Port Coquitlam would have been to build it as part of the courthouse. I wish now I'd insisted on that when Port Coquitlam wanted the new courthouse, because that would have been the right public policy decision.
But we're not doing that here; we're moving away from the immediate area, but we're keeping close enough so that the resources that are needed in the prison are available close at hand, so that relatives can visit -- and can visit by way of public transit if they need to -- and so that the sheriff's costs are reduced because you don't have to drive two hours into the wilderness to find the facility, and for a whole variety of issues of that kind.
If you're going to bring psychiatric and drug counselling programs into the prison, you don't want your professionals
[ Page 13634 ]
driving for hours on end to the facility; you want them located close by. That's the balance we try to achieve. The 30-minute rule in the Okanagan and the 5- to 10-minute suggestion in the Port Coquitlam area, as a result of the higher remand count, are part of the direction we're moving in. We're trying to meet a balance between the needs of the system and the needs of the community in which these facilities are planned to be located. I think we've met a pretty good balance, and I think we've been overly sensitive to public reaction.
We don't have to do this; the government could just go ahead and do these things. We've chosen not do to that. We are working with communities, and as long as I'm responsible for this we will continue to work with communities. But at some point, people can't always say, "There's another site," because the people at the next site will say, "Well, there's another site," and we will go on year after year, never finding a site for these resources, and we have to get on with it. Otherwise, the system just can't function. Some government some day -- not me in my time in this ministry, because I won't do this -- is going to have a minister responsible who's going to say: "To heck with it. We're just going to do it." The government has a right to do that if it chooses to.
J. Tyabji: I think the point is that that's the way it's coming across anyway, because in Winfield, by the time they found out that there was a proposal to get a jail, the site had been located and all the proposal was in place. Why wouldn't the Attorney General go to the community and say: "We have to, because of demographics, locate somewhere here. We have four possible sites. Which one would you choose? -- and give them some option? The fact is that the way it's being done right now -- and as I understand, it's been done the same way in Port Coquitlam-- the site is already selected before anybody even knows there's a proposal for a prison.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What generally happens in these situations -- and what happened in both these cases -- is that the ministry works with the local government, works with the local community, works with BCBC, and develops and finds a site. Then, generally speaking, everybody who's in a position of authority and who's in the community says: "Ah, good, we're on board with you; this is a good site." Then we make our application for rezoning, and then NIMBY starts. Then local people who've said "Yes, go ahead" start to get cold feet. That's what generally happens because people tend to think that the flak isn't going to be too bad: "We can manage this." Then half a dozen letters arrive and they get cold feet. That's the problem we've got.
We do not go in and identify a site all by ourselves privately, and then launch it on the community. We work with the community to identify the sites in the first place, and then we go through a zoning process. We're very early on in the process in Kelowna. I don't even think it's gone to first reading yet in Kelowna. No, it hasn't. So we're at a very early stage in that process. We worked with the local community, including the now Lake Country community, to identify the sites. We'll work through this process with them, and we've got lots of discussion yet to happen.
J. Tyabji: Clearly, when the Attorney General's office was approaching the locally elected officials, they didn't approach the area A regional district director, who was the only person who actually lived, worked or had a vested interest in that community. So because of the panhandle, the locally elected representatives have absolutely no stake in that area, except that they take their industrial taxes from it.
But leaving that aside for a second, are there any tenders going out on either of the projects proposed right now?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure how to ask this question of the member politely, but how could we go to tender when we don't have the site zoned yet to permit this use?
J. Tyabji: I have in front of me copies of advertisements that have been taken out in the Port Coquitlam papers that are talking about the remand centre in Port Coquitlam. They do seem to be putting the cart ahead of the horse, because they are talking about career opportunities and the status of the remand centre in their newspaper advertisements. So that's why I was asking the question, because I found it a little bit odd that there would be public money being spent on advertisements before there is even a rezoning process in place.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have the paper in front of me that the member has in front of her, but it didn't sound like a tender document to me.
J. Tyabji: That wasn't my question. The reason that I asked about whether or not there's anything going into tender is that the local residents would like to know. They were quite alarmed to see some of the advertisements that are coming out: the corrections' worker program for the remand centre with an application deadline of March 31, 1995; the advertisements that talk about the statuses, the rezoning and.... It says: "The architect for site rezoning is Hemingway Nelson of Vancouver, and proposals for architects will be called when zoning is approved." I mean it sounds like this is a done deal. In fact, according to the local residents, they have had that information from some of the corrections people.
Now, obviously, I don't live in Port Coquitlam, but....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member can certainly get into debate if he'd like to, because then he can put his comments on record so I can send them off to some of his constituents, who are clearly concerned enough that they've put together quite a bit of material on this matter. I would invite the member to do that. The fact that the people in Port Coquitlam feel shut out of the process is part of the problem. Clearly they don't want the remand centre -- or the prison remand centre, which is how it appears in most of these documents -- to be located in their industrial park when they think there are better options.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are so much involved in process that we've actually delayed the process and given even further opportunity for the community, as represented by their elected council, to continue discussions with us. Those discussions continue, and I can't predict their outcome.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to pose a few questions to the minister and also, at the same time, to take the opportunity to provide some clarification. I think the hon. member from Kelowna has aptly demonstrated by her comments -- as ill-informed as they are -- why we have 75 members in this House, and not one member representing the province.
[ Page 13635 ]
My understanding is that the site in Riverview which has been mentioned for the remand centre and regional corrections facility is within the city of Coquitlam; that although it's Crown land, the city of Coquitlam has jurisdiction over the rezoning of that site; and that the city of Coquitlam has indicated to the province that they are not willing to entertain the remand centre on that particular site.
As well, the particular site is one of the most desirable in the lower mainland from a development point of view for maximum dollars, and requires a great deal of planning around any future disposition of that land. It's also the site of the oldest arboretum in the province -- there's a great deal of public interest in preserving some part or all of that, and it has the support of the MLA for the area and the council of Coquitlam.
As well, I'd also like to point out that with regard to the cost of private land versus the cost of public land, the development potential.... If any development takes place on the Riverview site, given the current lot prices in the Coquitlam area, where affordable is now described as about $350,000 per lot, a ten-acre site would generate considerably more than $1.6 million -- I'm not quite sure off the top of my head, but I'm quite sure the member for North Vancouver-Seymour would appreciate that.
I'd just like to ask the minister a couple of questions along the lines of the process that has taken place in Port Coquitlam regarding the citizens' advisory committee. That was generated at the request of myself and the mayor and council of Port Coquitlam, and it is looking at a number of sites. But I'd like to ask the minister about the site that is currently the preferred site. That was not chosen out of the blue. It was looked at, and I think about 16 sites were considered.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the precise number. It was around that number -- somewhere in the teens -- in terms of the total number of sites that were looked at in a cooperative way with the municipality, and this was the preferred site out of that list.
M. Farnworth: Approximately 12 years ago, when the original courthouse site was considered in Port Coquitlam, it was desirable, as you have indicated, to locate the remand centre with the courthouse, but there was considerable public opposition. At that time, the citizens' advisory committee was in place and, if I'm not mistaken, it recommended to the province that a future facility should take place in an industrial area. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that that's correct, yes.
M. Farnworth: Given the fact that the first choice of the province was Crown land at Riverview and that is unavailable, and that the second choice was in fact a site in an industrial area which was recommended by a citizens' advisory committee the last time that one was considered.... Would that be correct?
[11:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I feel like I'm being led, but yes.
M. Farnworth: You're not being led, hon. minister; it's just an effort on my part to get the facts on the table.
I see that the hon. member for Okanagan East is leaving. It's unfortunate that she's not around to hear the rest of the facts. She seems to be more concerned with fearmongering.
The second point I wish to make is that the current citizens' advisory committee's role is to examine the existing site to ensure that it meets all the criteria, as well as to examine potential other sites within the city of Port Coquitlam to determine their suitability. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That too is correct.
M. Farnworth: Their recommendations will be looked at by both the province and the city of Port Coquitlam, and the city of Port Coquitlam, having jurisdiction over rezoning, will have the final say in the matter. Is that not correct, hon. minister?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, that's correct.
M. Farnworth: In closing, I'd just like to put on the record that the province has listened to the concerns of a number of people. They have gone out and looked at the best site in the city of Port Coquitlam, which is in an industrial area and a site that was recommended by a citizens' advisory committee. The final decision will be made by the council of the city of Port Coquitlam -- the duly elected body that has responsibility for rezoning matters. The province will respect the decision of the city of Port Coquitlam. The province has agreed to consult with all citizens' groups; in fact, that is a process that has been underway. The province established a storefront facility so people can get all the information they need, and no decision will be made without the input of everybody concerned.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to say thanks to the member for getting on the record the approach that we are taking in respect of the facility in Port Coquitlam. He's absolutely correct about the approach we're taking. That is a decision that we made as to how we should proceed and how we will proceed. The member knows, I think, that if we decided to locate the facility wherever we wanted to, we could simply do that; the government has the power to do that. I'm hopeful that we will never have to resort to that kind of use of the government's inherent power. In this case, I have committed that we will not do so in Port Coquitlam. We will work with the community. I have every confidence that the community and the council and the corrections branch will be able to agree upon an appropriate site that meets all of the needs of all of the players in Port Coquitlam.
R. Chisholm: That was an interesting piece of debate we had there. I won't lead the minister down the garden path with my questions, and hopefully I'll get more than yes-and-no answers.
I'd like to talk about corrections a little bit. What I'd like to talk about is the parole system and the lack of education or courses given to members of parole boards. After all, these are political appointees who are put into a position to judge whether an individual should be paroled or not paroled. We seem to have an awful lot of problems in this area. People are paroled too soon or not soon enough -- whatever the situation is. I'm wondering if there have been courses developed for these political appointees so we can alleviate the problems that we have with the parole system. If not, will there be such
[ Page 13636 ]
a course in the future? Could the minister give us his vision of how he would like to rectify the parole system the way we know it, with some of its faults?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm a little surprised at this question, frankly. Perhaps I should touch on wood when I say this, but we haven't had any difficulties that I'm aware of with the provincial Parole Board in the three and a half years that I've had this responsibility. One of the reasons for that admirable record over the last while has been that Parole Board members are chosen from their communities. It is a volunteer organization. Even the chair of the Parole Board is not a public servant but is from the community. All of the Parole Board members take training. The more seasoned Parole Board members work with new board members when they come on, in order to provide continuity.
The rotation.... If my memory is correct, people can be on the board for six years -- or is it four? I take that back; I'm not precisely sure at the moment. There is a limit to how long members can be on the board. I think the chair can be on for six years and board members for three years or thereabouts. We don't replace them all at once. I guess we replace six or seven each year so that there is continuity. I can't think of a single case where there has been public concern about a decision of the British Columbia Parole Board in the last three and a half years.
R. Chisholm: The reason I asked that question is that there is a perception out there that the parole system is failing, and I wanted to get on the record exactly how the parole system works, how people are appointed and whether they get training or not. As you realize, Steve Carpenter, for instance, comes from my constituency; there are situations that have happened. Whether federal, provincial or otherwise, the same brush happens to give the reputation to both levels of government. I wanted that on the record so that I can now pass it out and people can understand exactly how the parole system works and whether it's working or not.
One thing you didn't mention, though: are there actually formal courses that political appointees attend for becoming members of the Parole Board?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think the member mentioned political appointees. I think that's true only in the sense that they are order-in-council appointees. Given that cabinet is a political body, they are political in that sense. I think that any perusal of the membership of the parole boards would indicate that they are community-based groups with close connections to their respective communities.
All new members take an orientation program -- I think it's a week-long training program -- so that they understand how the law works with respect to parole, because federal statutes apply in this case -- a federal statute, I think it's fair to say, applies. They are thoroughly grounded in the nature of their responsibility and the consequences of their decisions.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the information, hon. minister.
Last year, when we had estimates, we discussed "easy bail," and at that time the minister responded by saying he thought the notion I was expressing was correct on some occasions. He went on to say that the Crown prosecutors would be making applications for "tougher bail conditions than judges may decide to set." My question, then, to the minister is: have there been any attempts, to the minister's knowledge, to tighten up that system -- to toughen up bail? Does the minister have a report on these sorts of things that a member could review, and are there some statistics available? In general, are we making any progress in this area? Because it was a rather loose-knit system we were talking about last year.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have been taking some steps, particularly with respect to high-risk offenders, to ensure that the bail system works more effectively than I think it may have in years past.
I'm just looking at some notes to see if there's anything I might want to add to that. First of all, the Crown, as a high priority, will ask the court to order that the accused be held in custody when detention is necessary to protect the public or to ensure attendance in court. At the present time, we are reviewing how we make those determinations in order to tighten that up so there aren't any slips through the cracks. In appropriate cases, the Crown will even ask the Supreme Court to review a bail order made by the Provincial Court, in order that the accused be detained pending trial.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
I think, in general terms, it's fair to say that the concern expressed by the member last year was a concern the ministry shared, and we have been reviewing the procedures to ensure that we actually do make the appropriate applications and, in particular, that that happen in high-risk offender situations.
R. Chisholm: Regarding the second part of that question, are there any statistics available or a report that a member could review about how this has been tightened up? After all, one case I quoted last year had one fellow being turned in and out of jail 11 times in approximately three months on charges of break and enter in the downtown Vancouver area. The highest bail set was $1,000, and he just went down to another area and reoffended another half dozen times. So I am wondering if there is a report available that we can look at.
My next question -- and it comes from last year too -- involves the Cultus Lake area in the Chilliwack River valley. You might remember that I inquired about policing, especially when we had the Commonwealth Games last summer and police were being taken from different areas to assist there. The situation in that provincial park has not improved since. As a matter of fact, if anything, it is far worse. After all, that park and area services all of the lower mainland. An awful lot of young people go there strictly to party, and three or four policemen have to police an area of a couple hundred square miles. It is physically impossible. We are now seeing cases of 12, 13 or 14 youths having fights outside of establishments near the parks. I am wondering if the Attorney General is looking into adding more police in that area to assist, especially during summer months when we see the great influx of tourists plus the Vancouverites who come to that area strictly to party or to relax. Unfortunately, the people who are coming are destroying tourism for families and other people who are coming there for normal practices.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows that the ministry does not allocate policing resources around the
[ Page 13637 ]
province. The decisions about allocation and placement of the provincial police force, which is comprised of 1,505 positions we fund, is made by the RCMP through a technical process they employ. They run that decision by us, and we have an opportunity to respond. We do not have a right, or the role which would allow us, to make a determination. The RCMP does that. Whenever there is a concern such as the member expressed last year and that other people have raised with me in the intervening period, and whenever there is a concern about policing resources in a community -- in this case, at Cultus Lake -- I refer that to the RCMP, to the commanding officer of A division. They take those public expressions of concern into account when they are doing their evaluation as to how to best deploy their resources.
R. Chisholm: I appreciate that the police allocate where the police are going to be, but you do have input into it. I have approached you through this chamber and I have approached the RCMP. Nothing has been done. If you talk to the local constables out in that area, they themselves are afraid of what might happen. After all, we've just seen where one policewoman was assaulted, there three weapons charges, the police cruiser was burned, and the people got 15 months.
[11:30]
This is a dangerous situation, and somebody has to do something about it, whether it be the RCMP themselves or the Attorney General getting involved. Unfortunately, we're going to see something that we're going to regret if we don't nip this in the bud. We have been addressing the situation for two or three years now, and I think it's high time.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have representations made to me constantly by members of the Legislature about the inadequacy of policing resources in members' communities. The member who is chairing the committee at the moment has made eloquent pleas for additional resources in her area. The MLA for North Island could make many pleas for additional resources in Port McNeill and in many communities around northern Vancouver Island in which there are no police officers -- places such as Zeballos and other communities.
So each of us in our job as an MLA has a responsibility to talk to the Attorney General about our concerns, and members do that. I relay the concerns to the RCMP; I don't tell them what to do. I'm not going to say to the commanding officer of A division in British Columbia: "I'm getting a lot of heat from the MLA for Chilliwack, so I want you to take away all of the police resources you have in another community, because that MLA is asleep and he won't notice, and put them into Chilliwack." I don't operate that way. The RCMP makes technical decisions about how best to deploy the limited resources. We have input into that, but we don't have a veto.
R. Chisholm: There must be some consultation between the Attorney General and the police force. They do come under your jurisdiction, after all, and it is a provincial police force, whether they be RCMP or not. The valley we're talking about has three prisons in it. It has the international boundary, provincial parks and tourists gathering in the area at given times of the year. I plead with the minister to take another good, hard look at it and talk to the appropriate authorities themselves before we end up having a policewoman killed instead of assaulted. Maybe it's high time we looked at the situation.
Another area I'd like to talk about is the comprehensive review of maintenance enforcement, which was authored in June 1993. I'm not sure whether this question has been asked; if somebody has asked the question, I apologize in advance. I appreciate some of the recommendations that were embodied last session in Bill 51. Could the minister tell the House if he is seriously looking at implementing any other recommendations from the report that were not addressed last spring? I know this is future legislation, but I'm curious about where the minister's focus might be.
Specifically, I understand that some other jurisdictions are looking at helping the enforcement situatioh by allowing registration of enforcement orders with credit agencies. This has the effect of restraining payers from increasing their credit lines without first meeting their obligations under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. I understand that Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Yukon have this in their present legislative packages. Ontario tried but was turned down by the Legislature. Is the Attorney General considering moving in on this front in British Columbia, or has he other visions he'd like to try?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The changes we made last session were the limit of the changes I'm considering at the present time. We think that the array of tools at the disposal of the FMEP has been expanded, and we think we need to test how this works before considering further options. If there continue to be problems, then in the future we would consider different ways of trying to ensure compliance. But we think we've given the program sufficient tools, and we want to see how they work before we do anything else.
R. Chisholm: My last question of this morning would be on community policing again. We discussed this to a small degree yesterday. You were talking to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, I believe. You mentioned a few programs, such as the development of community antiviolence programs in North Vancouver and Surrey -- that community had developed their own. I was wondering how they're paying for this. Is the ministry involved in helping to finance these programs? Do you envision these programs going out to other communities in the province that they would be of very great use to?
You started talking about the Knowledge Network and a few other programs that were available. Do you envision these being enlarged? How do communities access the information that is available to help them go down these trails? Are moneys available for communities to do this? Yesterday, as you know, we talked about fines and moneys that would possibly be available. Is there something in the system right now that they can approach?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I need to say there's not nearly enough money to support the level of interest that the community has.
My approach to this issue of assisting communities in developing more effective crime prevention and community policing programs is to say to communities: "You know best in your own community what programs will work for you and what you're interested in pursuing. We will support your initiatives in whatever way we can by providing experts from the ministry who perhaps work in the local area -- Crown or probation officers or whoever is appropriate for the particular
[ Page 13638 ]
circumstance -- to work with the community in developing these programs." We have some limited financial resources available for startup programming. We have, in a very limited way, made those kinds of allocations around the province in the last while.
I encourage communities to come forward with particular initiatives that they think are appropriate in their case. It may be, in one community, a victim-offender reconciliation program. It may be a police-based diversion program in another. It may be an enhanced kind of Neighbourhood Watch program. In yet another, there may be any range of alternatives that people are interested in pursuing. It may have to do with getting police officers into the community in a more effective way. We are more than willing to help, and we encourage communities to put together proposals and meet with our staff to talk about these ideas.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the Attorney General about the freedom-of-information program within the Ministry of Attorney General -- in particular the cost of administering freedom of information, the volume of requests received through the various branches of his ministry to date, and whether or not FOI has been implemented effectively in his opinion. Or are we still in the growing stages where we're learning -- and perhaps from our mistakes -- particularly in the sensitive area of the administration of justice?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have about $600,000 allocated in this budget for the AG freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy program. We have about eight full-time-equivalent employees working on FOI. I don't have the ability right now to answer the question of how many applications we had in our ministry for the last period of time. I'll try and get that for the member.
D. Mitchell: I'd appreciate it if the Attorney.... Go ahead.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've done the factual side of it, but I didn't do the more.... The other question was: are we in a learning phase here, and how's it going? I think government is very much in a learning phase. We're all trying to learn how to deal with new concepts. We're trying to learn how to deal with a new set of values with respect to both privacy and access. While access gets all the public attention, even to the point where we all refer to it -- and I do, too -- as FOI, the access side is only part of the legislation. The privacy side is at least as important and, in my view, is equally as important as the freedom and access side.
I think what's happening in the early going is that we're still, in various ministries, working out how to handle requests, how to make decisions about requests, how to sever, how to answer all the technical questions, how to get approvals for what should and shouldn't be released, and who does it and who doesn't do it. All those kinds of questions are being sorted through at the present time, and I think there are a lot of growing pains; I guess that's probably the best way of describing it at this point. But it will come around. I think, in the final analysis, given that we have the best legislation in North America on this subject, it will work well for British Columbians.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the Attorney's comment on freedom of information, and I appreciate his optimism that it's going as well as he says it is.
I'd like to ask the Attorney General about some of what I might refer to as the unintended consequences of freedom-of-information legislation. It's my understanding that when any individual -- a member of the general public, a member of this House, a member of the news media -- makes a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the requester is, in theory at least, confidential. I think the act addresses that. Certainly when the hon. Attorney General brought that piece of legislation forward in this House a couple of years ago, we had some discussion about that. The principle was that when someone makes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the identity of the requester should be confidential. Yet it would appear, generally in government and perhaps in the Attorney General's ministry as well, that when someone does make a request for information, that's not always the case.
I wonder if the Attorney General would have any comments on this, or if he could share any concerns about whether or not the act might even need to be amended to deal with this situation. The Attorney General says that he's concerned about privacy, and privacy is certainly important. But what about the privacy rights of the person making the request?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows where he's driving this vehicle, but I'm not sure what his destination is. As a result of that, it's a little difficult to answer the question.
Obviously, if an individual makes a request for their own information, it's not going to be private to the people in the ministry who are searching for the information. On the other hand, if somebody makes a request for a letter that I wrote to the federal minister, do I immediately issue a press release saying that so-and-so has asked me for this information? We don't. I'm not quite sure where, in between those two wildly exaggerated notions, the member is zeroing in on.
D. Mitchell: Let me approach this from a slightly different perspective. I'm talking in a general way about some of the unintended consequences of this act. When people make requests for information under that act to any ministry of government, including the Ministry of Attorney General, we know that those requests sometimes take some time to fulfil. Sometimes before the information is finally released to the individual who has requested the information, amazingly, leaks take place from government. Sometimes they seem to be selective or suspicious -- we don't know for sure. Sometimes government announcements intervene before the information is released.
In a government that seems to have been very porous in the recent past, I wonder if some of these leaks could be attributed to the fact that freedom of information is now in place. The Attorney General says that we're in the learning process and in the growing pains of this. But when someone makes a request for information and the information is released magically by government -- several instances can be noted; I don't want to get into specific cases -- either through an announcement or through some other means, isn't that evidence to suggest that the act is not really fulfilling the purpose that it was intended for?
[11:45]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
[ Page 13639 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think these questions should properly be directed to the Minister of Government Services, who has responsibility for freedom-of-information legislation now. But if the member is asking me whether I should keep a document secret -- a document that I have every right to release should I choose to -- simply because somebody has made a freedom-of-information request about that document, I would say the answer is no. I have the right to release information whenever I choose, as long as I'm not violating privacy provisions. If a member is so kind, by way of an FOI request, as to jog my memory on an issue that something should become public, then it seems to me I might want to make that public. I don't know that there's any logic in me waiting for the member, who has made the request, to make it public when it's something I might want to take advantage of. In those cases, I would simply say thank you to the member for jogging my memory and for giving me the opportunity to take advantage of releasing the document.
D. Mitchell: I guess what the minister has just done is confirm that when requests under the Freedom of Information Act come forward in his ministry, his office will typically be aware of those requests for information and, for instance, of whether or not a Member of the Legislative Assembly has made a request. That's what the minister has implied.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know how it works in the other ministries, and I don't pretend to speak for them, but in my ministry I am not typically aware of requests. In fact, I know of almost no request. I couldn't tell the member right now whether there are three requests or 3,000 requests in our ministry; I don't know. But on occasion a request is made for a letter that I have written. For example, some time ago a request was made by the Leader of the Third Party for release of correspondence I had with the federal Minister of Justice. Before those letters were released to the member, I was advised that they would be released. That's better than my ministry blindsiding me by releasing them to the member and then me discovering from the media that they had been released. In that case I would have been happy to have released the letters ahead of time. I didn't; we followed the proper procedure. But typically, as the minister, I would not know about run-of-the-mill applications. Perhaps when it applies to something I have directly done or said, it's a little different.
D. Mitchell: We're talking about freedom-of-information requests. The minister has said that he will get back to me about the volume and costs associated with those requests in his ministry.
One other area I am interested in is the fact that as of last fall, freedom of information applies to local government bodies in British Columbia, including police forces. I wonder if it might be possible for the minister -- if his ministry tracks this kind of information or has access to it -- to tell us how we're doing so far with the volume of requests under freedom of information to local police forces throughout the province. The reason I raise this and the reason I'm interested in these statistics, is that there has been some attention to this and some grumbling, I guess we could say, from a number of police forces throughout the province about the cost, the administrative burden, and some issues of sensitivity and confidentiality associated with requests that have come forward to local police forces. Until last year, police forces had the power to decide what information they would or would not release to the general public about their own traditional police business. With the advent of the act, when it came into effect last fall for police forces, this has all changed. Requests for information to local police forces have to be fulfilled, unless, of course, a penalty will be paid.
I think the Attorney General will agree that there are some very serious concerns about this from local police forces in terms of, first of all, the administrative burden and the cost, and whether or not that can be fulfilled, given the budgetary constraints already on local police forces; and also the confidentiality of some of the requests that are coming forward, where police business, sometimes of a confidential nature, is being requested -- sometimes by criminals. Does the Attorney General have any comments about safeguards that can be in place to satisfy the concerns of local police forces?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the time the legislation was crafted, and prior to its presentation in the House, there were extensive discussions with the police community in British Columbia to ensure that confidential information could not be released, and that's the practice. I think everybody who's working with the legislation -- directly in government or indirectly in the covered areas -- finds it difficult to get used to it in the early going. The police are no different in that respect than anybody else, but I think it's coming together. Procedures are being developed, protocols are better understood, and we're well on our way to this becoming what it should have been historically -- a routine matter, so that the public information which is properly in the public domain is available to the public.
We haven't had that traditionally in the British parliamentary system, and we've had to impose this regime on people who don't like to share information -- information that the public pays for, short of protecting the privacy provisions and other obvious things such as criminal information that shouldn't be in the public domain. We're working our way through this. Sure, there are growing pains, and the growing pains exist in police departments like everywhere else. Everybody's going to get used to it, and ten years from now nobody will even blink.
D. Mitchell: The question might be that over the course of the ten years that the Attorney General's predicting, we might be able to work into a system where we understand the consequences, and perhaps the unintended consequences, of freedom of information. There could be a lot of damage done. When it comes to police forces and their need to administer this act now, we have a number of police forces throughout the province who are questioning whether or not the public would be better served by having peace officers on the streets preventing crime, rather than by having them sit in an office processing freedom-of-information requests. There is a significant cost to that, and in theory, while many police forces supported the legislation -- there's no doubt about that -- in practice it's become a lot harder to support the cost and the burden.
In addition to that are the concerns about public safety. I'd like to quote very briefly from an article from right here on Vancouver Island -- the Saanich News weekend edition of Friday, April 14. "Information Is Not Free or Private: [Say] Police" is the headline of this very recent article, which says: "Hard-core convicted criminals are taking advantage of the
[ Page 13640 ]
Freedom of Information Act to access documents and photographs pertaining to their cases. This, says Doug Richardson, is putting victims and witnesses at risk." Freedom of information is putting victims and witnesses at risk, according to local police authorities here in Victoria. The unintended consequences of freedom of information, which were not contemplated at the time the legislation was drafted, clearly might need to be reassessed. I am wondering if the Attorney General can tell us if there are any specific measures being contemplated, in the year under review that we are being asked to approve today in his budget, to address these specific concerns about public safety that are coming forward as a result of freedom of information applying to police forces.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If there are any public safety concerns that would arise from the release, then the material wouldn't be released. The act is clear in that respect, so I am not quite sure what the concern is.
The member's previous unanswered question related to the number of requests to the ministry. There have been 777 to date -- today being April 25, 1995 -- starting from October 4, 1993.
D. Mitchell: The minister has answered that request, and I hope he can also fulfil my further request for the volume of requests coming forward to police forces throughout the province. If it takes time to assemble that data, that would be fine, but I hope the minister could fulfil that as well.
I know we are going to have a number of other questions on the Ministry of Attorney General, and perhaps we should save them for this afternoon. With that, I would like to move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before moving the motion, I just want to advise members of the House that we will sit Wednesday afternoon. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:11 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Chair, we are here today to start the process of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I think it would be in order to give an overview as to where we are headed and the directions that we have been following for the last couple of years.
We have a challenge, all of us in this province, when we look at the fundamental mandate of the Ministry of Education, which is to provide services to children, the young men and women in British Columbia, in order to better prepare them for the life or the career that they wish to follow, following their graduation.
At the same time, we recognize that the province as a whole is in quite a transition from an economy of yesterday to an economy of tomorrow, and to a different set of challenges that young men and women then must face as a result of that.
The challenge of today for young men and women is to find their place in the world of work, following graduation or perhaps following some post-secondary work. As we change from a resource-based economy to a technology- and service-based economy, we are still plagued by the problem of so many of our young men and women not having been prepared to the degree that they should have been, in order that they can take their place in the larger society.
Our schools do a very good job. We have a very good system, but it is better for some of our young men and women than for others. It is excellent for those young men and women who have an academic bent and are intending to go on to post-secondary academic study. We rank in the world in that area. But that might account for around 30 to 35 percent of students leaving school.
We have to direct our attention toward the 65 to 70 percent of young men and women who do not follow that course of life -- at least, not immediately. That redirection will meet part of the challenge that we are facing.
[10:15]
The challenge is this. Fifteen years ago our graduation rates were in the order of 65 percent -- that is to say, 65 percent of those young men and women leaving grade 8 went on and graduated on time with their class. And in 1995, if we look at last year's records, we are at about 68 percent, so it has plateaued.
It means to me that we are succeeding in keeping young men and women in the system. They are there with us, in body, through high school, but all of them are not there in spirit or in mind. We have to ask ourselves: why is that?
I think part of the answer is the focus. We have had this academic focus -- meeting the needs of those with an academic bent and not paying sufficient attention to those young men and women who wish to pursue other careers and options for their life after school. We have seen the apprenticeship system wither away in this province. We, on the one side, support the academic side through scholarships, sending a signal that those children's -- those young men and women's -- career goals are laudable and supportable. We indicate that through many, many scholarships. We recognize the work of sports as well, with a variety of scholarships. Various post-secondary institutions offer many, many athletic scholarships.
[ Page 13641 ]
In the past few weeks, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour and I have announced apprenticeship scholarships: this year, a modest beginning of ten to 20; next year, 100; the year following, up to 200. Each of them is a $1,000 scholarship in order to send a signal again that a career in a trade is a good choice. It's a choice that's worthy of respect, it's a choice that is worthy of support and encouragement. So that's one step.
Another one we have been working on over the last year and half to two years is a refocus of the general curriculum to meet a wider set of needs, a shift away from high theory and high academics toward what we'll call applied academics, where the content of the course is more relevant to the needs of men and women in today's society and economy. The ministry made a promise to the system that we would deliver on new curriculum, we would roll it out on time, we would roll out the integrated resource packages, and we would give support for staff training and professional development in-service. The ministry has followed through on time on all of those commitments.
This fall we will see the first set of new curricula brought into the schools. The graduation program, the new intermediate program, career and personal planning, applied skills and fine arts have all been rolled out on time. All of the support is coming along on time and out into the system. This, too, is a large signal to our young men and women that we take all of their goals and career plans to be valid. We're going to do what we can to assist them in meeting their goals and their family's goals.
In September 1996, there will be a second set of new curricula rolled out; in September 1997, the final set of new curricula will be rolled out. Each of them will have a period of implementation such that by the time we get to June 1999, all of the new curricula, covering the complete core, will have been rolled out and implemented across the system. A great deal of consultation went into that, with all of the partners in education, to come to a reasonably quick yet manageable implementation scheme.
As I said earlier, we are supporting the system in the in-services, as well. We are devoting about $11 million within the budget, and the ministry is finding a further $5 million within ministry operations to concentrate into in-service delivery. It will be, perhaps, the largest in-service delivery that the system has seen. Having seen that the commitments made a year and a half ago were followed through on time, on target and on budget, I believe that the system understands and has accepted that there is a deep commitment in the ministry to follow through on all commitments.
I might add that although we rolled out the largest set of changes that the system has seen -- with the most enhanced levels of support in integrated resource packages and in-service training -- we did so with a decreased ministry budget within the ministry operations. In fact, over the last four years we have sent a signal to the system as a whole that you can do more with less. We are getting by today with fewer FTEs and with something in the order of 12 or 13 percent lower funds for ministry operations, and we are putting out more and higher-quality work. All of the districts must pick up on that and do their share in reining in their costs.
Another element, with respect to reaching more young men and women and holding them in the system, has to do with technology. We have seen far, far too many of our vocational areas ignored or underfunded for, literally, decades. We see equipment in the traditional shops that has stayed essentially unchanged for decades. We have seen inadequate investment in new shops -- graphic arts, communications, current automotive, power mechanics, value-added in wood shops and current technology with respect to metalworking. By not making the investments in those areas, we have also been sending a signal to young men and women and to families that says, in effect: "These areas are not to be valued. Your choices to work in areas such as apprenticeships and shops do not have sufficient weight within the ministry and within our society."
We have reversed that. We are making investments in technology, and we are supporting young men and women in those choices as well. This year, in addition to the regular funding, we will be putting about $10.7 million into technology to assist school boards throughout the province to meet some of those challenges.
In a different area, we have also simplified the funding for our school systems. We have made things much simpler, in a much more straightforward presentation. We have a system now that is understandable by parents, board members, teachers and everyone wishing to take a look at how schools are funded. They will see that we have brought in a new, fair and equitable system.
Going back for a moment to relevance and technology, I am remiss in not having mentioned Skills Now, which this government introduced about a year ago, and the success that program has met with. I believe 73 of 75 districts now have Skills Now programs and funding in place. Many of them have looked to revitalizing the apprenticeship area; some 23 districts have investments there. We anticipate that next year as many as 50 districts will have apprenticeship programs up and operating. If we do all of this right....
Chair, I've noticed the red light. Is that correct?
The Chair: Hon. minister, you have another 15 minutes, I believe -- a little less than that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be 50 apprenticeship programs in place. In southeast British Columbia, a number of school districts have combined to form a consortium where they are offering an accelerated apprenticeship program. In that instance, young men and women will be able to graduate with their Dogwood Certificate and at the same time receive credit for having completed the first year of an apprenticeship program.
We are also trying to reach out to as many of our families and children as possible on a variety of equity issues in order that there be some equality of opportunity. That is yet one more factor in why we lose some of our young men and women from the system before graduation. This government, of course, started the inner-city schools program, and we have recently expanded it to give additional resources to those boards dealing with unique problems of economic hardship and economic stress in their communities. This government, under a previous minister, introduced the extremely progressive school meals program, such that children from economically stressed backgrounds could have a more equal start in their education through basic sustenance provided by the school in either a breakfast program or a lunch program and in a few instances both. In the inner-city schools program,
[ Page 13642 ]
some take advantage of funds to offer a junior kindergarten, which can increase the equity of opportunity for those children.
We are pursuing, at the pilot stage, the Kids At Risk initiative, such that all the services that government offers -- through Social Services, through community health or mental health programs in the Ministry of Health, through the Attorney General's ministry and the Ministry Education and, in some instances, through the Ministries of Housing and Aboriginal Affairs -- can be provided by those ministries, brought into the school and offered as a complete support system for families and children in need.
[10:30]
We have been asking our teachers and administrators to do too much in the system -- to take on and attempt to solve all the problems of society that walk through the door of the school each morning while at the same time deliver quality education. Through the Kids At Risk initiative, we're trying to allow the professionals in the appropriate area of expertise to offer their services directly to children, parents and families. This will take some of the load off of our classroom teachers and school-based administrators, and at the same time get at the underlying causes of the problems that children are facing. From my point of view, that too is a very important equity program. By giving assistance to children, it enables them to have an equal start in their education career.
Part of the larger issue of holding and graduating more young men and women from the system is the issue of relevance: the relevance of the knowledge they are receiving in the curriculum, the relevance of all careers, of all employment opportunities. Part of it is the equality of opportunity that we are addressing through the various equity programs.
Then we go to a couple of other areas that the public is concerned with. Accountability is one. We are taking steps in this area through improved reporting, such that parents understand more clearly what is happening with their children's educational careers by being able to read and understand the information quickly; encouraging the participation of parents in the process; the participation of the system in testing -- standard tests, both provincial and national and international. These tests are repeated on a regular schedule, and then the results of those tests are made available to the public and to the parents such that they can form their own opinions as to how well the system is doing with the tax money we spend.
The last areas are standards and quality. We must deliver to the public of British Columbia, to the parents and their children the highest quality of education. We must set the highest standards, and then we must expect the system to be able to deliver. All the way through the work that has been going on over the past year in the integrated resource packages and in the development of the new curriculum, we have paid particular attention to the standards and quality required. The check on those standards and qualities, in the long run, will be the performance of our young men and women in the testing we do. The accountability will come in the reporting of those test results to the parents, partly through the individual reports and partly through the district reports incorporated into the system.
If we do all of these things -- and if we do them well -- then I contend that over a period of time we will see the response of the system. We will see the response, and we will be able to measure the positive response in the graduation rate. If we have included the technology that is appropriate, if we have included the relevance of all the materials, if we signal the respect to all career opportunities in planning learning plans and career plans of children, young men and women, families and teachers put together..... If we signal our respect for all of those, if we make the investments in our apprenticeship programs, our shop programs, in our scholarship programs, in the equipment, then I believe that a greater percentage of the young men and women in the system will see that their plans too are valued and that the school is offering something to them that is directly relevant to their plans, to their hopes and aspirations. Then they will stay with us, not just in body, but they will be with us in spirit and in mind as well.
There are those who say that we can't accomplish all of this within the education system as it is currently constituted, that we must go to different kinds of models to permit different kinds of choices. One of the favourites brought forward is the voucher system, or charter schools. Let it be as clear as can be that neither the voucher system nor the charter school system is acceptable to this government -- and certainly not to this minister -- and it will not happen on my watch. I believe in the equality of education, in high standards, in accountability, in relevance for all students in British Columbia, from the smallest district and the smallest school to the largest, to every choice of career opportunity that a young man and woman is facing. To all of those who are in economic stress or not, whatever their background, I believe fundamentally in equality -- the equality of funding, the equality of opportunity. I will not buy into the rhetoric that says we can have one level of education and schooling for some children but another for the remainder. I will not buy into a two-tier education system, any more than I will buy into a two-tier health care system. We can deliver the quality and the relevance and the standards and the accountability to every student in British Columbia. We can show, through our actions, that we validate every career option that young men and women are pursuing. And we will not -- we will never -- slip to the position that some children will get one level of education, while others must be satisfied with another, lesser level of education.
The Chair: I now recognize the hon. member for Langley, who has an equal amount of time.
L. Stephens: I don't intend to be as long as the minister, but I would like to make a few remarks.
The minister talked about the system being better for some than for others, and he is absolutely right. I think we have done a very good job of preparing our students for the academic stream and on to post-secondary education at the university or college level.
However, as the minister said, the challenge is to graduate 100 percent of our students, and with the new, relevant skills that are needed today in this new emerging society. That should be our goal. Parents are looking for those increased opportunities for their children -- those learning opportunities and those choices that they believe are important, as do we.
Preparing students for this new work world, or for a post-secondary education, means that we need to look at
[ Page 13643 ]
different instructional techniques, different instructional opportunities and different programming in order to allow all of our children to be successful. I agree with the minister that we need to have the kinds of programs in place which will help our children become successful. I don't think anyone disagrees that all our children need to be successful. The objective is to provide the kinds of program and instructional methods to make that happen. The curriculum changes that have been brought forward....
Before I leave that, let's talk a little bit about accountability, flexibility and responsibility of parents, students, teachers and schools. I believe these are the three principles around which our public education system must come to grips with to prepare our young women and men to be happy, healthy and productive individuals in society.
I would also say that members on this side of the House, the official opposition, do not support voucher schools, as the minister knows well. The voucher system is not acceptable. The fairness and equity issue is important to us as well. But I would certainly suggest that we do not have fairness and equity in the school system today. I think the minister would agree with that. Programs are available to some students that are not available to others. Some facilities are available to students that are not available to others. So to make a blanket statement that somehow providing different educational opportunities for students creates a two-tier system is, in my view, simply not a valid argument.
In our health care system, we have different services for different types of illnesses. I don't see any reason why we can't apply the same principle to our education system and allow different learners to be instructed in different manners and, perhaps, different settings.
The curriculum changes that have been brought forward have been quite extensive and continue to cause a number of problems in the implementation process. I have asked for the integrated resource package that was released on Friday. We do not have it yet, and I would appreciate it. I simply say that it has left the school districts in a bit of a quandary to have to implement these new program changes in four months. I would hope the minister, with all of the resources at his disposal, will make every opportunity available to the schools to implement these in a constructive way and not further contribute to the level of discomfort and anxiety that has been expressed to me by classroom teachers about this new curriculum implementation plan.
The daily difficulties of teachers -- with ESL and special needs students, crowded schools and ever-increasing portables -- is another concern that virtually everyone within the system is concerned about. We're going to talk about those difficulties a little bit later on. We're also going to talk about the apprenticeship programs that the minister spoke of, specifically around some of the issues of technology, which are -- and I share this view with the minister -- an important focus that our schools have to address.
[10:45]
I would like to know a little bit more about how this is being moved along, where the particular pilot programs are up and running and how long they have been in progress. I would like to know, and we might as well start now: what are the main objectives of the technology program, and what is in place to measure the effectiveness of them?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I don't want to have to put the hon. critic in the awkward position of asking her to cross the floor, or anything like that. I wonder if I couldn't convey to her an integrated resource package. I will have a complete set of them delivered to you today.
L. Stephens: Thank you, I appreciate it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You will see from those, incidentally, that teachers will now have in one place.... If you actually just open it up at almost any page in the centre, you'll see that there's a pattern of the prescribed learning outcomes, the suggested instructional strategies, the suggested assessment strategies and the recommended learning resources that are available. This will be available as a multimedia document for teachers commencing in the fall. It will help them greatly in the implementation of the new curriculum. I would also make reference, if the hon. member wishes, to the current update on implementation published by the ministry which gives a lot of information with respect to the consultation that has occurred and to the activity of various partner groups.
The partner groups in this instance for the in-service and support have included the BCTF, the principals and vice-principals, the school trustees, the superintendents, the BCCPAC, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Business Council of B.C., and the Canadian Union of Public Employees. So there has been a very comprehensive consultation program on implementation that has occurred over the past several months. I am confident that we will now see a very smooth rollout.
I might also mention that I think the 75 superintendents who met with ministry staff this week to go over the implementation plan, the IRPs particularly, were complimentary to a person as to the fact that they came out on schedule and that they are of the quality they are. I do sincerely believe that the implementation, the torch -- so to speak -- has now passed over to the boards and the superintendents. The feedback I received from both the trustees in the recent meetings and from meetings I held with the 75 board chairs and with the superintendents indicates that we are now in a position to have a very smooth rollout of the implementation.
With respect to your specific question about the $10.7 million in technology, I will be announcing within a couple of weeks the details of how that funding will be put out to the system. There is consultation going on and the development of the plan is going on. I want to make sure that we -- and when I say we I mean all of us in the system, all districts -- benefit to the maximum degree possible from that $10.7 million, that we do it in a coherent way that brings as much equity to the distribution of that funding as possible and yet at the same time gets us the very greatest benefit from the additional funds.
L. Stephens: If the details are going to be released in the next couple of weeks, I would presume that is where it is going to be, and so on and so forth. I'll ask the question again: what are the main objectives of the program, and what measures do you have in place to measure the effectiveness of the programs?
The Chair: Before you start, hon. minister, I might just draw your attention that we address comments through the Chair as opposed to personal pronouns and personal address to each other.
[ Page 13644 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps I can get a clarification with respect to the particular program that the member has in mind. I don't know for certain if it's the $10.7 million in technology expenditures, if it is the applied academics generally or if it's the principles-of-technology program. Perhaps you could rephrase your question to me.
L. Stephens: The minister spoke of apprenticeships, apprenticeship programs and scholarships. He talked about ten to 20 this year. I would like the minister to elaborate on this area. Again, what are the main objectives of the apprenticeship program, and what processes have been put in place to measure the effectiveness of these programs? I define apprenticeship in the old manner, if indeed that is still the case, in that there is a linkage somewhere, I would presume, between the high schools and industry or whatever. Perhaps the minister could define these apprenticeship programs. I hope it's not work experience or career prep. I would like to know if the minister has come up with something other than those two.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour is looking at the new apprenticeship areas and informing the process through that effort. They are also looking at future job availability on the job market and informing their own processes, and then informing K to 12 as a result of that.
We have two districts -- and Langley is one of those -- that are offering pre-apprenticeship programs, and then there is the accelerated apprenticeship program down in the southeast section. But in each of those instances there must be a committee in place in the district, with both labour and business participants, in order to establish the apprenticeship program. The young man or woman enrolled in that apprenticeship program will receive credit for the first year of the apprenticeship program at the same time as they receive their Dogwood Certificate.
In terms of what is in place in order to check the outcomes of this process, I guess that's premature. We will have to see, as this rolls out, the success this has. In the meantime, young men and women -- including young men and women in Langley -- are able to take courses at high school that they would otherwise have to take in first-year college, at a college site or a post-secondary site, in order to take the first steps along the route to an apprenticeship.
L. Stephens: This is somewhat similar to advanced placement, the same principle, when there were different courses at the high school level that you used to be able to take to have advanced placement at a post-secondary institution, and that's what this sounds like. The word "apprenticeship" is what confuses me. Is this apprenticeship program that you're speaking of focused around the applied sciences? You talked earlier, in your opening comments, about the need to have a second focus around those students who are not going on to post-secondary education or who need to have something along the applied sciences skills. Does this fall under this idea and this focus?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are different elements at play here. One is the shift in content of curricula from narrow, academic, high theory to a broader, applied academic...to have content in all of our courses that relates more to today's world.
Quite apart from that shift of the core subjects to applied academics, we have pre-apprenticeship programs -- and in a few instances accelerated apprenticeship programs -- to deal with the traditional trades. But Skills and Training is looking at some new apprenticeships that could eventually show up at the high school level in pre-apprenticeship or accelerated apprenticeship programs and might provide apprenticeships in a variety of areas in the economy where there are good, solid future employment opportunities.
If I might just cast back for a moment to your previous question about how we are going to evaluate it, I took your question to mean: how are we going to evaluate the eventual outcome of this shift? Will more young men and women stay in school, and will those who go through this process get a job at the end of it? That kind of information, those data, will show up.
If your question was with respect to evaluating the course itself, I will say that built into each Skills Now contract that boards must sign, there is an evaluation of the course. They must go through that evaluation in order to receive all the Skills Now funding. A final payment is held up until the evaluation component is complete.
[11:00]
L. Stephens: Most interesting. I was referring to a couple of evaluations. One, of course, is the evaluation of the students and whether they are in fact learning what they are being asked to learn in the course. The other is whether the new courses are relevant to today's world. Having them simply stay in school is what we've tried to do over the last while, and frankly, it isn't all that successful. I think a combination of relevancy, from the point of view of students seeing a benefit to staying in school and to achieving. I would like to know what indicators and measurements are in place so that the school and the classroom teacher can evaluate the progress of the students and the effectiveness of the course itself.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, there are a couple of indicators that will come out, if you will, automatically: how many -- next year, the year following or the year following -- young men and women decide to stay in the system and graduate? We have counts of the enrolment in career prep programs. In fact, I have purposely -- in the change to the funding formula used -- moved away from funding districts on the basis of the number of career prep programs they offer, to funding on the basis of how many young men and women enrol in their career prep program. So it is my contention that if the career prep programs being offered are quality and have the appropriate curriculum, the appropriate technology, the appropriate equipment and the appropriate settings, more young men and women will enrol in those career prep programs, and we will see those numbers come out automatically in the counts that the system does.
L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a few questions generally about ministry operations. I would presume there is an amount set aside for public servant travel. Could the minister tell us what the amount per public servant would be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Under STOB 10, travel, the total is $48,044. I'm given to understand that that includes travel expenses of secondees as well.
L. Stephens: I would like to know whether or not this figure, which seems remarkably low, is the total for the minis-
[ Page 13645 ]
ter's ministry. Or is it just for admin and support services? I would like to know the total public servant travel costs of his ministry.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will provide a more complete answer perhaps first thing in the afternoon. I tend to agree with the member opposite that the $48,000 figure given here is very, very low. I anticipate that that may be just a component of overall ministry operations. Rather than try to hurriedly find a number here, I'll provide you with the number this afternoon.
L. Stephens: The numbers of FTEs in the ministry have been restated for comparative purposes only. The figures shown for 1994-95 expenditures and FTEs have been restated to be consistent with the presentation of the 1995-96 estimates, which makes it a little difficult to compare. In 1992-93 it showed 400 FTEs; in 1993-94 it showed 439; in 1994-95 it showed 440. Now 1995-96 shows 394, with 1994-95 restated as 404. So could the minister explain these differences? How does your ministry compare in the increases or decreases in FTEs over the past year, and what is the percentage increase in...? Perhaps that's an unfair question. What I'd like to know is: what is the difference in your FTEs over last year, and what is the percentage of increase in FTEs over the last year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The numbers for the last fiscal year, then coming to the 440, and then the restated.... We transferred a provincial program at Jericho Hill -- that is to say, the operation of the residential aspects of it -- to Social Services. That's 36 FTEs; that dropped us to 404. Then in this year's budget process, we have taken a further cut of ten. So that gives us our current FTE allocation of 394.
I might give a further indication that of the total budget back in '91-92, operations were about 2.2 percent. This coming year we will be at 1.6 percent of total budget, which is a decrease over the last four years of about 13 percent. I'm also advised that we have, as a ministry, the smallest percentage, in terms of operating budget, of any ministry in Canada.
L. Fox: I just want to go back -- the reason I jumped up at this time is that I didn't want to get too far away from the issue of career prep and pre-apprenticeship -- and ask a few specific questions around that program.
First, I would like the committee to know that I'm a strong proponent of apprenticeships, as I'm a creature of that process myself, having served a five-year apprenticeship to start out my career. I recognize the value, but there are a couple of issues that I would like discussed.
The opposition member talked a little about an evaluation process. I'd like to expand that not only to the evaluation of a student, but also to the counselling process in order to help students identify their talents, strengths and weaknesses in such a way that they might be able to choose a certain course. One flag that I draw here is that we should leave enough academics in the system to allow a student to -- as they may, in fact, mature -- not be lost in the process, but indeed have other opportunities available to them.
I would have to include the question: what emphasis is going to be placed on the academic side, as well as on the pre-apprenticeship side, so that we don't funnel students down a path where two years later they may decide that they've made the wrong choice?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member has, through his question, touched on an area that's of particular importance to me. We can look to other jurisdictions, some European jurisdictions, that go back 20, 30 or 50 years where young men and women were streamed into a trade at a very young age and locked off from other opportunities in life. That is certainly one thing we do not want to do, so we must maintain right through grade 12 the tradition of a broad, classical liberal arts and science base to enable the student to keep as many options open as possible and to inculcate to the maximum degree possible all the bases that go into being a lifelong learner.
By making a single fine arts course mandatory, regardless of what you might think you want to be, we're saying that it's such a good idea to take at least one fine arts course in order to keep a window on that part of life. So one applied skills course is mandatory. The core examinable courses -- the basic subjects taken or the foundation course -- remain at 28 or the equivalent of seven full courses. We are now using a credit system, so it's going to be 28 credits out of 52. So there are 24 credits of space for options or electives, locally developed and otherwise. I think it's a fair balance between making sure that the foundation is there -- the broad base that we want all students to have -- and making sure that the base is relevant to today's world to the maximum degree, and then going beyond that and building some specific skill sets or some information that is related to the world of work on top of that foundation. But the foundation itself, and the flexibility it gives a young man or woman in later life, is very important.
[11:15]
A couple of other elements help out. We have introduced -- and it will be implemented this fall -- career and personal planning for grades 8 through 12. In that, there is not only a student learning plan constructed and then updated year to year by the student, but there is also a career plan that is built at an early stage in consultation with teachers and with parents. Then those young men or women bring that career plan along with them year to year and update it as they go, depending on new information that has become available to them. The idea of bringing career planning into the K-to-12 system was to encourage serious thought about future careers, such that young men and women could start to make some important decisions at an early time and look forward to see where they are going.
It also ties into job shadowing, and in grades 11 and 12 it ties into the 30 hours of work experience that must be related to their career plan. All of that is to make sure that on the one hand they're keeping a goal in mind and on the other hand they are constantly being reminded by the whole process of all the options available. As they proceed through, even if it's pre-apprenticeship that they're on, they are still taking their foundation courses, which then always leaves all the other doors open to them for post-secondary work.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up on a question to the minister. One of the ways the system has failed in my view and I think in the view of many parents and many students over the course of years is.... I'm not laying blame here on any particular element of government or the system, but we haven't targeted very well what real job and career opportunities would be a number of years down the road.
One of the difficulties in that has obviously been technological change. That has been very difficult to read -- where
[ Page 13646 ]
we're going to be five years down the road. But because of that, particularly in the apprenticeship area, today we have many qualified.... I'll use mechanics or technicians as a good example. We have many technicians out there who have been doing mechanics for a long time but now don't have the literacy to be able to keep up with the technological change that is in fact happening within that industry.
It's going to become more and more important in many fields of apprenticeship that the students are very literate when they leave the school system in order to succeed in the trades. That's the reason that I'm so concerned about not losing the academic component of our educational system while we change the emphasis and put more emphasis on the Skills Now type of initiatives -- good initiatives, which I support 100 percent.
There's one other component that I didn't hear in your response to me or in your response to the Liberal opposition. What role -- for instance, industry, business or labour -- is the Apprenticeship Board playing in the evaluation and design of all this new thrust? Perhaps you could fill me in if they are playing a role in this particular initiative.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, just to clean up on the last area, I agree. Of all the skills that are imparted to children, from my personal point of view, what should be encouraged above all is reading skills. You can build writing skills on that, and then you can build all the other love of learning and lifelong learning skills on those. But right at the very foundation is reading -- comprehension included, of course. Indeed, in today's world it doesn't matter what trade or area of business you're in, you've got to be literate, and increasingly literate, at a high level.
You have my full commitment that we will not forget the academic areas -- reading, writing, the basics -- as we make the shift into some applied academics and revitalization of the apprenticeship system as well and the role, limited though it may be, that the K-to-12 system can play in that.
With respect to the participation of others, the apprenticeship board, of course, is the ultimate controller in this area. We are working very closely with the Business Council and the Federation of Labour with respect to the quality, the evaluations and the construction, so to speak, of these pre-apprenticeship courses.
L. Fox: I have just one final question. I ask this because the experience of many individuals wanting to get into an apprenticeship is that the opportunities are largely dictated by the economy and that the chance of getting into an apprenticeship program, which includes a segment of college time, has been very limited. A number of students have not been able to achieve an apprenticeship because they could not get into the college system in order to achieve it. What dialogue has taken place between this ministry and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour -- or whatever it's called now? It used to be post-secondary education or advanced education. But what dialogue has taken place to be sure that there are going to be opportunities available in the college system to take this new abundance of students into the next stage?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is very, very close cooperation between the Apprenticeship Board, Skills, Training and Labour and ourselves, K to 12, on all the apprenticeship issues. The details, of course, can be looked into when the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is in his estimates. But I think the tremendous expansion of spaces that has occurred in post-secondary institutions as a result of the Skills Now initiative -- close to 7,000 spaces last year, I think -- is an indication that the space is being made in the system. Some post-secondary institutions are actually advertising for enrollees.
At the University College of the Cariboo, there is a new, major investment occurring with respect to industrial technology, and many, many apprenticeship opportunities are available there. I know that Skills, Training and Labour is looking into very seriously studying the job market indicators for areas in which new apprenticeships should be created. There are some obvious alternatives in British Columbia in communications, information technology and a variety of other high-tech areas. But one that surely we can all support is a variety of apprenticeships in environmental redevelopment and value-added manufacturing of wood products.
The Apprenticeship Board and Skills, Training and Labour will do the work to determine just what apprenticeship areas are going to be hot in the future. We will then do the work with Skills, Training and Labour, the Federation of Labour, the B.C. Business Council and the Apprenticeship Board to make sure that the pre-apprenticeship programs we are commencing in the K-to-12 system ladder very effectively with what the post-secondary system will be able to offer.
W. Hurd: I had a more general question for the minister regarding education in the province of British Columbia. Looking back in the previous set of estimates for the Ministry of Education, one of the great concerns expressed in the school system generally has been the labour relations climate. I wonder if the minister can tell the committee about his personal philosophy with respect to accessing school facilities during labour disruptions. Does he believe that there is ever an instance where children in our province should be denied entry to their schools and the opportunity to learn as a result of a legal strike in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have no labour disputes going on within the system. There are 600,000 students learning today. There are 35,000 teachers working today and 25,000 support members in 75 districts. If at some point in time we have a situation where learning is not occurring, I would suggest that the hon. member raise the issue at that time.
W. Hurd: That's a very encouraging analysis. But I think there's a deeper principle than that, and it's the very real likelihood that in the future -- if not in this current fiscal year -- a school building in the province of British Columbia may be surrounded by a legal picket line. As the minister well knows, in previous years that has resulted in the closure of the school and the inability of the students to access the building to learn anything, to even study or gain access to the library. I think the question certainly deserves a more elaborate response from the minister than that.
He will know that there's been considerable opinion voiced by parents in the province of British Columbia that schools should, in fact, be declared an essential service, much like the hospitals of the province, where even were there to be a legal strike by the B.C. Teachers' Federation or by CUPE, the schools would remain open, students would have access to some level of learning and they would at least be able to
[ Page 13647 ]
prepare for provincial exams or meet the kind of testing guidelines that the minister talked about during his initial address to the committee. Surely he recognizes the principle of an essential service designation for education. It is a pretty simple question. Should students have access to their classrooms during a legal strike or not? I think it is a basic question as we move further into this set of estimates.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This government believes in collective bargaining. We have put in place a system of provincewide bargaining for teachers. There is an employers' association that is now responsible for their role in that, along with the BCTF, to see that that comes to a successful conclusion.
The employers' association also plays a role in respect to support staff negotiations. All those negotiations have been carried on responsibly. Not only have we seen this government bring down the level of settlements to a point that the public can support -- settlements in the vicinity of 1 percent -- but all of this has happened without any disruption of learning in British Columbia. I presume that the employers' association has the needs of the children in this system in mind every bit as much as the member opposite does.
I believe that the employers' association will do their job, as will the organizations that they are bargaining with. And at the end of the day, I believe we will both have preserved collective bargaining, which is very important to this government, and we will have preserved a quality education system.
[11:30]
W. Hurd: I'm surprised and disappointed that the minister would suggest that there's been no disruption. Clearly in the past three years there's been considerable disruption in our school system including, as the minister well knows, in the district of Surrey, the largest in the province of British Columbia. Under the previous collective bargaining system, it was simply unable to reach any kind of settlement, and the result was a six-week strike that I think is still being felt in the district today with the lack of confidence that parents feel. They feel a vulnerability in their children's education.
As we know, a labour strike was barely averted just this week in the district of Chilliwack. So I think we can accurately predict that the free collective bargaining that the minister has described will inevitably result in the withdrawal of service and a strike by one of the unions involved in the public education system. That would be my expectation; that's the nature of free collective bargaining. So I ask the minister a basic question again: does he believe there should be an essential service designation for the parents and the school children of this province -- who, after all, the system is designed to serve -- to enable them to go to their class to learn something and to have access to public school buildings, to public facilities, during a labour disruption?
It's a pretty basic question, and the minister's suggestion that we don't have any problems now, so raise it when the issue comes up is really, I think, totally evading the question. As the Minister of Education, does he believe that schools should have the same level of protection as hospitals during a legal strike? Should there be an essential service designation for the province's public school system?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think, in the member opposite's question, he used the words "barely averted" with respect to the Chilliwack School District. I think the operative word there is "averted," and a better word yet is "settlement." A settlement has been reached. The employer's association did their part in the bargaining. The union did their part in the bargaining. They have settled without any disruption.
With reference to the situation that the member has raised in Surrey, the fundamentals have changed since then. We now have a province wide bargaining system in place, and we have experienced no difficulties to date from having put that system in place. This government supports collective bargaining.
W. Hurd: I suppose that's an answer of sorts. The minister is not denying that there will likely be, as inevitably there will be with collective bargaining, a labour disruption in the future. One would assume that if that occurs, the students in the various districts of the province will not be able to access school buildings when they're behind picket lines, and they will have their education disrupted.
I think it's important to get that out on the table during this set of estimates, because I think it represents a fundamental difference of opinion between the minister and his party opposite and the official opposition, which has argued from the beginning that education is an essential service in the province of British Columbia and that there should be a level of service maintained. Regardless of the situation with the collective bargaining agreement or contract, regardless of the number of pickets that may be around the school, the school should remain open. The minister is saying that he doesn't necessarily support that, and I think it's important to address that question during this set of estimates.
On to another issue. It's important as we get into the early stage of the estimates to look backward at some of the goals that were established for public education in years previous. I'm just looking at some of the recommendations from the Sullivan commission on education, which I think are as relevant today as they were when that royal commission first toured the province and listened to parents, British Columbians and educators about what needed to change in the system.
It's important that some of the findings of the Sullivan commission be read into the record during this set of estimates, because I think they really invite a number of questions with respect to the current expenditures of the Ministry of Education. For example, Mr. Sullivan found that a major segment of the population -- 80 percent -- does not go to college after graduating from grade 12 and seems ill-prepared for work. Their numeracy and literacy skills are below expectations. Thirty percent of the grades 8 to 12 student population drop out before graduation. The existing curriculum is too old for the information age, and a major revision is essential. Some subjects.... The social studies manual is mentioned as being some ten or 20 years old. There was concern expressed about the lack of relevancy and rigour in the existing curriculum. Thinking skills didn't receive the emphasis they should. Teaching styles were certainly mentioned as coming in for criticism over lack of excitement. They don't stress the active participation of the learner.
I think there was another series of findings by the Sullivan commission that found that career education and career planning were virtually non-existent in the present system,
[ Page 13648 ]
particularly in earlier grade levels. Students did not demonstrate the technological literacy one may expect in the eighties and nineties.
The other major concern that was addressed was the lack of accountability and how money was allocated and spent in the ministry. I just wonder if the minister could take a minute to tell the committee what progress he feels has been made with respect to some of the findings of the Sullivan commission. Clearly, during the course of this government's mandate, we saw the Sullivan commission recommendations on the year 2000 virtually abandoned by the current government. That would presume that the same problems still exist in the system: the same lack of accountability with respect to the type of courses, the type of job that teachers are doing in the classroom, the lack of career education and career planning -- basically, the lack of accountability. If British Columbia and Canada are to compete in a world economy, there has to be some benchmark measuring our education system outputs with what's happening elsewhere.
I wonder if the minister could advise us whether he feels that those problems which were identified in the royal commission, and the strategy identified having now been abandoned.... Does he feel there is adequate benchmarking or adequate standards being established to enable the public, the users -- the students -- and the parents to actually measure the results coming out of the school system? What type of communication device is the ministry planning to use to communicate the results of these standards or benchmarks? This is, after all, the only way that we can measure whether we're getting good value for the money that is being plugged into the system every year -- some $3.9 billion.
The Chair: In view of the time, I will let the minister respond to the question and then suggest that we adjourn for this portion of the estimates.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All of the quotes from the Sullivan royal commission we support, we agree with, and we have acted on. In my opening statement I covered many of those items as to what the needs of the system were and how we are responding on all of those -- on relevance, on accountability, on quality and on standards. I've just indicated that we're bringing out new curricula in all the core areas, that it has all been checked for relevance, that the integrated resource packages are out and that the learning outcomes were published for the first set of curriculum renewal. The system has looked at it, the system has been consulted, and the system has said that this is good stuff. With respect to all of those items, we're acting on all of them.
With respect to several of the items having to do with career prep, for example.... Since 1990-91 -- over the four years that this government has had some responsibility -- we have seen increases in career preparation programs of 69 percent, then another 41 percent, then another 25 percent, and now another 29 percent. We have seen, then, an increase over the last four years of enrolments ranging around 7,000 to enrolments of 26,000. That's performance. That shows that we have taken to heart the recommendations of Sullivan and are acting upon them.
With respect to assessments, again, if you go back and look at my opening comments, you will see the reference to standard testing, to participation in testing on an ongoing basis, provincially, locally, nationally and internationally, in order that we are assessing the outcomes and that we are publicly reporting those outcomes. We have also -- with all other ministers of education across Canada -- entered into the proposal to publish an education report every year, where we will show the data that each of us has with respect to performing.
Far from abandoning the elements that Sullivan recommended, we have acted on them in a very, very substantive way and in a way that 75 boards and 75 superintendents and 75 sets of trustees have approved. I think if the member asks the opposition critic from the recent BCSTA meeting, he will see that there is a great deal of support for the agenda.
There are differences between that side of the House and this -- no doubt whatsoever. I revel in those differences and would like to underline them several times. First, this side of the House and this minister believe in collective bargaining. Second, we do not believe in a two-tier education system.
With that, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]