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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 6
[ Page 13649 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
L. Reid: The son of Jack and Kay Collins has been instructed not to have introductions made of his parents. I thought I would welcome them to the chamber, and would ask the House to please make them welcome.
B. Simpson: I am delighted today to introduce Mr. George Tanco, president of the Society of Notaries Public. As a practising lawyer myself, I fully appreciate the role that the notaries have in keeping down costs, and I would urge all members of this House to greet the notaries.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome my father, Merrill MacPhail, to the Legislature from the great land of Prince Edward Island. He fortunately missed the tragic bombing, and I assured him that there would not be one here today, unless it was the opposition falling on their faces.
D. Schreck: In the gallery today is Mr. Pat Tidball. Pat Tidball and I worked under the guidance of Norm Levi and Dennis Cocke back in 1973 to put the provincial Pharmacare program together. I'll always remember the days when Bill Bennett stood in this Legislature and told the Dave Barrett government that the Pharmacare legislation was the best legislation introduced by that government. It gives me great pleasure to see Mr. Tidball in the gallery today, helping our government defend medicare against a two-tier attack.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a pleasure this afternoon to introduce representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C., who hosted members of the opposition last night, I understand, and will be hosting members of the government this evening. In particular, I would like to welcome to the gallery Mr. Grant Burnyeat, treasurer of the Law Society, and Mr. Eric Rice, president of the B.C. branch of the CBA.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have one of Canada's most respected parliamentarians -- a man whose wit, logic and passion are missed in Ottawa. I'm referring to the Hon. Ian Waddell, and I would ask that the House please make him welcome.
D. Jarvis: Two visitors to the gallery today from Sidney, B.C., are Bernice and Eunice Spring. I'd like the members to make them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Before I introduce another gentleman who's in the gallery, let me add my welcome to my old friend, Ian Waddell, and I would ask the House to greet him a second time. Thank you.
I have a friend in the gallery, Hardev Bal, who's a constituent of mine as well as the vice-president of my constituency association. Would the House please welcome him.
J. Dalton: Mr. George Tanco, president of the notaries' society, has been introduced. But accompanying Mr. Tanco are also Sally O'Sullivan, the first vice-president, Stan Nicol, secretary of their association, Ken Sherk, who heads up their political action committee, and Brent Atkinson, who is also a member of that same committee. So I would ask the House to welcome all of the notaries public.
N. Lortie: We have with us in the gallery today another group of bright young students from the great municipality and great constituency of Delta North. There are 30 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary School in North Delta. They're studying grade 11 government, and that's the purpose of their trip here today. They're led by their teacher, Ms. Barcket. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to introduce a group of people in the precincts today. Prof. Paul Tennant is, of course, no stranger to any member of this assembly. The group of people with whom he is travelling today are strangers thus far. I'm referring to the 1996 legislative interns, whose acquaintance we all look forward to making. The interns are as follows: Adam Barbolet from UBC, Tanya Garcia from SFU, Greg Gowe from UBC, Julie Jackson from UBC, Pam Jefcoat from UVic, Kevin Moorhead from UBC and Tom Syer from SFU. I'd ask my colleagues to join me, please, in making all these people welcome.
T. Perry: I'm not quite sure who this gentleman is up in the Speaker's gallery; he's obviously somebody very important. I do know an Isabel Waddell who was once a constituent. But whoever that is, I'd just like to welcome him too, since he's obviously some big shot.
B. Copping: In the gallery today are my sister and brother-in-law, Joan and Keith Hillaby, and they're visiting from the slash-and-burn and wipe-out-medicare haven of Alberta.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. We all know that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from the people and charities in Nanaimo. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House if she is confident that no taxpayer money -- not charity money -- found its way into the NDP-affiliated Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member well knows, there have been a number of investigations of the four societies, and there continues to be a forensic audit under the Society Act, under the Premier's initiative. That report continues, and we're waiting until we see the results before there will be any further discussion of this matter.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, the Liberal caucus has found out that not only were the charities bilked, but the taxpayers of British Columbia may well have been bilked. We've examined the records of the Nanaimo Senior Citizens Building Society. Between 1979 and 1982, directors of the NCHS, including Dave Stupich, infiltrated the board of the seniors' society.
[ Page 13650 ]
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand this is a sensitive issue for the New Democrats; if they'd come clean and have a public inquiry, we wouldn't have to do it in the House.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The society then began receiving massive provincial and federal grant money to build seniors' housing. They didn't just build seniors' housing; it appears they also invested over $68,000 in NCHS debentures. Will the Minister of Finance order that the investigation by Ron Parks be expanded to include taxpayer money funnelled to the NCHS?
Hon. E. Cull: This member knows full well that if he has any information of improper or illegal doings of any sort, he has a responsibility to bring it to the attention of Mr. Parks, and I urge him to do so.
W. Hurd: The tangled web of the NCHS continues to build. Financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society charities list donations to the Nanaimo Senior Citizens Building Society in excess of $175,000 between 1981 and 1983. However, according to the seniors' society, they received a total of only $40,000 in donations from all sources during this period. Can the Deputy Premier advise the House whether or not Ron Parks's mandate will cover these insider deals using taxpayers' money, and whether those dealings which led to the original convictions will be fully analyzed by Mr. Parks as his investigation continues?
Hon. E. Cull: I would ask the member to consider the answer I gave to the previous question.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The same information calls the accounting practices of Dave Stupich into question yet again. Immediately after infiltrating the board of the seniors' society, Mr. Stupich began doing accounting for the seniors' society as well as the NCHS charities. It is clear that the only way to get to the bottom of this Nanaimo scandal, which now involves taxpayers' money in addition to charity money, is to have a full public inquiry. Will the Deputy Premier today, on behalf of the government, commit to a full and open public inquiry so that the trail of taxpayers' money to Nanaimo can now be traced to its source, and we can get to the bottom of this sordid mess in Nanaimo?
[2:15]
COMMUNICATIONS SITE FEE STRUCTURE
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for Crown lands. On January 1 the minister quietly introduced a new communications site policy that will have a devastating effect on many small communications companies. Communication companies that were paying a flat fee of $500 for a tiny plot of Crown land needed for a radio transmission tower will now, in some cases, be paying $10,000 for the same site. How can the minister possibly justify this massive tax increase that will see communication fees jump by as much as 2,000 percent?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I took a question from the Social Credit leader -- or the Social Credit member in this House, I guess; I shouldn't call him leader -- the other day on this issue and indicated that I would take that question on notice. I expect to have a reply to him in terms of that issue in due course.
The Speaker: The member has a different question? This question was taken on notice.
R. Neufeld: I have a new question to the same minister, and that will give him three to answer. This policy will affect anyone depending on telecommunications: the forest industry, guides and outfitters, oil and gas industries -- in fact, anyone who uses communications in rural B.C. I have letters from two small companies that will see their costs jump anywhere from 650 percent to 2,000 percent. Yet Westel, a subsidiary of B.C. Rail, is competing with these folks and will be exempt from the fee. Will the minister scrap this regressive tax immediately and renegotiate something with those companies that is fair?
Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, I have a great affinity for both the media and the communications industry in this province. In fact, some have said that I've never met a microphone I didn't like, and there might be some truth to that. In any event, it's always in the interests of government to make sure that communications in this province are such that the government's messages on jobs and medicare and whatever other issues are important to us get communicated. If there are impediments to it, of course we're interested in being as fair as we can.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
V. Anderson: Unfortunately, the public has lost confidence in Social Services' ability to protect those children of the province who are in care and those who have been abused. The ministry ignored the cries of children such as Matthew Vaudreuil, Jeremy Harris and Serena Fry. New revelations are coming forward that the situation is even worse than we understood it to be. Ministry staff is reported to have continued to ignore a number of instances where abuse was reported, or they do not have the expertise to follow up. Justice Gove, therefore, in his interim report, has made recommendations asking for urgent changes to Bills 45 and 46. I ask the minister: will she commit today to the changes that Judge Gove has recommended to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, and will they be implemented before that act has been put into place?
Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, hon. Speaker, each time my friend from the opposition gets up and criticizes actions around the ministry, he always fails to say that their party would slash and burn services to protect children in this province. It is with a great deal of hypocrisy that his leader stands up and says that he would prefer a Klein approach to a Harcourt approach. Where Premier Klein cuts off family services, we increase our support to family services. It's time for him to stop politicizing the issue of child protection.
In terms of his wishes around changes to the legislation, he knows full well -- because I have personally kept him
[ Page 13651 ]
informed of this -- that those matters will be coming before the House very shortly. I expect his full and unfettered support of what we bring forward.
V. Anderson: We hope we won't have more children suffering because of the conditions that our minister has had to face. We are all concerned, I trust, that the mandate of the child advocate should be extended to protect all the children in the province, not just those under the care of Social Services. Someone must be able speak for the children, since the ministry has not been able to do so to date. Will the minister accept the recommendations of Justice Gove that the child advocate be able to act on behalf of all children in the province, in all ministries?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much look forward to discussing this at the appropriate time when it comes before the Legislature.
B.C. HYDRO INTERNATIONAL'S ROLE IN YACYRETA DAM
M. de Jong: My question is for the Government House Leader, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. The chair of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Laxton, was recently quoted as saying that we have entered into a joint venture in Argentina with Argentinean and Paraguayan partners to bid for the operation and maintenance of the 2,700-megawatt Yacyreta hydroelectric project. This project has been dubbed by the Argentinean President as "a monument to corruption," with the disappearance of over $1.3 billion since construction began. My question to the minister responsible is: why would B.C. Hydro be entering into a joint venture in a project with such a sordid past as the Yacyreta hydroelectric project?
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted that B.C. Hydro International, like other power utilities across the world, is looking at exciting opportunities to create jobs here in the province and revenue for our taxpayers using the expertise in British Columbia. They're exploring opportunities throughout the world. I might say that the cabinet has directed B.C. Hydro International to prepare environmental and social screens to review international participation in any projects, and no such projects will be entered into by cabinet.... Cabinet will review any projects that are generated by B.C. Hydro International not only on the basis of their financial return but also on the jobs created in British Columbia, and it will ensure that they maintain standards which are acceptable to British Columbia, including environmental and social standards. I can assure you I would be delighted to table this in the House in a matter of weeks, I suppose, when cabinet and others review the very detailed work being done right now by B.C. Hydro International and place it before the House, because we want to say that B.C. Hydro's reputation on environmental matters is enhanced and continued when we deal with the exciting international opportunities.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: I'm pleased to hear the minister refer to environmental and social screens.
My supplementary question is to the Minister of Environment. According to the World Bank, the project will displace 50,000 people, including many of the people who are indigenous to the area. Already we are advised that there's been an environmental disaster that has resulted in 120,000 fish being slaughtered during the filling of the dam, which led one Argentinean environmental organization to call Yacyreta "the most serious environmental aggression in the country's history." My question to the Minister of Environment is: does he support B.C. Hydro International's decision to venture into a project that has such a horrible environmental, social and economic history?
Hon. M. Sihota: Rather than commenting on or inquiring about environmental issues internationally, perhaps the hon. member should be clarifying the position of his party around environmental issues here domestically. He talks about fish, and the hon. member knows full well that in British Columbia one of the greatest threats to fish is sewage being pumped into the Fraser River system here in British Columbia. His leader says...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: ...that sewage treatment would be a luxury, that his party would not fund sewage treatment here in British Columbia and that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. Perhaps the hon. member should indicate whether that would be the pulp mill effluent discharge incentives that we brought forward here in Canada, which are the toughest in North America.
The Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the hon. member should spend more time in this House...
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Hon. M. Sihota: ...trying to explain the policies of his party, which are totally deficient from an environmental point of view, rather than questioning the policies overseas of other countries.
B.C. FISH FARM INDUSTRY PROSPECTS
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The fish-farming industry in the province has amazing potential. However, due to barriers that have been put in place by this government, the investment in fish farming is leaving and going to the United States and Chile. My question to the minister is: when will he commit to removing the barriers that threaten the British Columbia fish farm industry so that the jobs don't follow those in the mining industry and head south?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm standing here wondering whether the member saw a press release that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and I sent out in the last two weeks, where we approved nine new licences, which will increase by 10 percent the amount of....
Interjections.
[ Page 13652 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They're not leaving.
We'll expand the industry by 10 percent, and if that member is concerned, he should think about the potential effects on the wild salmon that we have to guard against. We have to make sure that we protect jobs in the wild salmon industry, and we will do what we have to over the next year to clarify policy issues that are there -- legitimate concerns that have been raised by both sides about the development. We are committed to a sustainable development of this industry, and the licences that we approved in the last couple of weeks will see a 10 percent expansion. Over 100 jobs will be created by the expansion of that industry.
W. Hurd: I ask leave to table a petition, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to table a petition in the House today from 673 of my constituents. It says: "We, the undersigned, wish to register our profound opposition to recent changes made in the Adoption Act regulations without public discussion." The petitioners respectfully request, in the spirit of open government and in the best interests of the children of British Columbia, that the House reinstate the previous regulations for the adoption of infants and children until at least the public interests have been adequately considered.
J. Dalton: May I have leave to table a petition, hon. Speaker?
Leave granted.
J. Dalton: I have a petition from 3,030 Port Coquitlam residents who are all expressing major concern about the proposed prison remand centre in their community. Given the timely discussion of this morning, I think it's appropriate that this petition arrived today. The people of Port Coquitlam are concerned about the location, which is very near to schools and residents, and they ask in the petition that the centre be located out of the municipality of Port Coquitlam.
G. Wilson: I ask leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: This petition is in somewhat unusual form, but it comes from the school children of Powell River in light of the most successful meeting that we had with the Minister of Education yesterday in terms of the restoration of school funding. I'd like to House to please receive this petition.
Hon. D. Miller: I can see that the Liberal caucus is waiting with bated breath, and I have the honour to present the 1994 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committees A and B. In Committee A, I call the Ministry of Education estimates; and in Committee B, I call the Ministry of Attorney General estimates.
[2:30]
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).
The Chair: I will recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. But perhaps, member, with your indulgence, I might just ask those other members who are not participating in the committee deliberations to please leave quietly.
G. Wilson: My question is specific to work that is now currently underway, and I realize that future legislation is something that the minister can't comment on. However, it does deal with the Legal Profession Act and the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act with respect to collection agencies that represent clients in terms of collection within the courts and the judge's interpretation. There seems to be a longstanding problem, and it's noted that the Debt Collection Act fails to specify agents in the courtroom. I wonder if the minister might tell us what is being done to clarify this situation and -- to the degree that he can tell us -- to what extent there may be some amendments that would provide clarity on the provision of agents in collections, as we're all trying to cut down the cost of court services.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member noted, it's inappropriate to talk about legislation, or legislation that might be required, in estimates debate. My source for that is on page 107 of George MacMinn's book, if members want to refer to it.
Having said that, it's a legitimate and fair question, if not in this form but in general terms. It's clear that changes to the Legal Profession Act are required. I am unable to say at this point when the House might have an opportunity to deal with that.
G. Wilson: It's a testimony to the length of tenure the minister has had in this House that he has memorized Mr. MacMinn's book to the point that he can quote each page.
J. Tyabji: Just that one.
G. Wilson: Or perhaps it's just that one page he can quote -- I'm not sure. But I think with respect to this issue.... I won't belabour the point, given that I take from the minister's comments that there are likely to be some amendments to the Legal Profession Act. Some of us would argue, in fact, that the act needs to be rewritten from beginning to end. I would argue that.
Not to belabour the future-legislation point of view, on the question of collection, however, I think there is likely to be
[ Page 13653 ]
some conflict arising as a result of groups that are now starting to emerge in providing services to individuals facing litigation -- people who are not lawyers and who lawyers may claim are practising law, despite the fact that they are lay people providing advice with respect to the legal system. My comment is directed with respect to the costs that would be incurred if an agent is not permitted in the collection process. I wonder if -- in looking at the budget and in the provision and funding of court services -- the minister is prepared this fiscal year to entertain the notion that costs can be mitigated if there's a provision for representation by those other than lawyers. That's not to say we don't need lawyers. That is another argument entirely, which we won't get into now, because it's a lengthy one. It has more to do specifically with the question of attempting to mitigate costs by the provision of licensing agents in collection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there are any additional changes with respect to that in the court services budget. With respect to the overall issue, it's an issue that I think should properly await the debate around the legislation, if and when that occurs.
G. Wilson: I only have one other question, then, with respect to this. I raise it to bring it to the minister's attention, because we have had, as the minister will see, a number of different representations with respect to this. It is clearly an issue that is being experienced around the province. The last comment is with respect to those companies that are fully licensed and bonded with respect to this service. Will the minister tell us, in looking at ways of trying to cut costs -- I think that is something which is in the interests of all of us, and I don't expect you to comment on future legislation -- whether or not a provision is being contemplated in any way for expanding licences to people who are licensed and bonded agents with respect to the provision of legal representation in collection?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not prepared to get into that kind of discussion in estimates debate. It's something that should await the appropriate forum.
J. Dalton: I wish to raise some questions and issues surrounding the Oppal commission, which, as all members know, is a very worthy project. It is probably more extensive than the Attorney General or anyone else ever contemplated when Wally Oppal was first assigned the task. I think it's important that we have some discussion in the estimates -- and, hopefully, on an ongoing basis beyond the estimates -- about the importance of the many recommendations that Justice Oppal submitted and where the Attorney General may be taking those recommendations.
I will start by making a reference to the transmittal letter that appears at the beginning of Justice Oppal's four-volume report. He comments about the B.C. Police Commission and the excellent work it has done over the years. He makes the following statement:
"It has been instrumental in establishing guidelines in such important matters as the use of force, high-speed chases, no-knock searches and spousal violence. However, it is my view that these functions ought to be the responsibility of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the province."
And Justice Oppal goes on in that same vein.
I would like the Attorney General to start on this topic, and comment about what changes, if any, he contemplates coming out of remarks such as the one I just cited from Justice Oppal's report.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That particular reference in the transmittal letter raises a fundamental question about the structure of the Police Act and police governance in British Columbia. It speaks to a difficult question, and that is: should there be an independent Police Commission -- as now exists and has existed for 20 or 21 years -- which is involved with and responsible for these policy determinations, or should those matters originate in and be the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General directly? As yet, we haven't come to conclusions that have led to legislative proposals around that topic.
I think it's fair to say that there is very good argument for retaining the Police Commission structure. On the other side of the question, there is very good argument for the need to find some way of rationalizing the process in which you have a two-headed monster governing these kinds of questions -- the government, through the ministry, on the one hand, and the commission on the other. I think Justice Oppal's conclusions were, in part, reached as a result of often conflicting advice and conflicting conclusions reached, on the one hand by the commission, and on the other hand by what was the police services branch of the ministry. So those questions remain outstanding. I don't expect to reach conclusions around those questions in the very near future.
In the meantime, the Police Commission is functioning very well. The existing commission functions as the Police Act envisions, and I have no difficulties with the commission. In fact, they have my full confidence, and they are doing good work.
J. Dalton: Continuing with the same line of questioning, I think back to when Justice Oppal was making his rounds of the province and conducting public hearings. I had put in a written submission that when he arrived in West Vancouver I would like to appear and make some comments about high-speed chases, which is one of the topics that I have just quoted from his document.
When I was doing my research on the particular topic of high-speed chases, I was quite surprised to find that there was an amazing variety of police policy on that very topic. Of course, there wasn't necessarily any consistency even from one jurisdiction to a neighbouring jurisdiction. That's why I think these comments that Justice Oppal has submitted in a very extensive series of recommendations are important. There are 317 recommendations in his report. Certainly this particular topic that I'm citing, high-speed chases, was addressed in his report. Even though I can understand that there's an ongoing examination of the many, many implications of the Oppal commission, I think it would be very important for the Attorney General's ministry to recognize that we don't have any consistent policy from one police jurisdiction to another even on a fairly and seemingly simple topic like high-speed chases. I don't think that is very desirable, quite frankly, hon. Chair.
I might tell the committee why I happened to pick that topic. The reason is that I have seen too many lawsuits and judgments coming through the courts whereby quite innocent people.... For example, I recall a case from Toronto where
[ Page 13654 ]
two nurses standing at a bus stop minding their own business were wiped out by a vehicle being driven by a 16-year-old car thief, who was shot in the back. It wasn't intentional. They were trying to shoot out the tire of the vehicle, but the police officer actually ended up shooting the 16-year-old in the back of the neck. Needless to say, he lost control of the vehicle, and two people were dead on the sidewalk as a result.
I cite that particular case as one example. I think too often even today we read of police chases through residential communities. I would like the Attorney General to cast his mind to the need for such things when we consider the various implications of Justice Oppal's report.
I appreciate as well the comments that he's made about the Police Commission. I agree; I think the commission has done a good job. But clearly we're getting into a new era where we're going to have to revisit the entire question of policing: whether it should be generated out of Victoria or whether we should be taking into account more and more community needs. Of course, it's probably safe to say that community policing is the main theme of Justice Oppal's report, and maybe we can get into that in a few moments.
The Attorney General has gone on record -- at least, I think that's one way of putting it -- in a release that came out of his office on February 3 dealing specifically with a consultation document that his ministry has put out, and in a moment I'll get to asking some questions about that. The document was dealing with one of the recommendations of Justice Oppal proposing an independent public complaints commission.
But the release that's attached to this discussion document indicates that there will be three areas where the Attorney General will be placing his emphasis and where we might start implementing the Oppal recommendations. The three areas cited are: search warrants, the use of deadly force and the process of investigating complaints about the police. Of course, this document is the third item, and we can get to that in a moment. Would the Attorney General advise the committee what recommendations or what implementations, if any, are taking place with regard to first, the search warrants that are mentioned, and second, the use of deadly force? I do recall the Attorney General, by the way, saying last Thursday that the issuing of new handguns -- new police revolvers, I presume -- will have a bearing on the second of those topics.
[2:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member knows that one of the recommendations was to authorize municipal forces to use semi-automatic handguns should their respective departments choose, and we made that possible by order-in-council. That was actually the first of the formal recommendations that Oppal made to be adopted by the government. The question of search warrants is a question that is largely in the hands of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. We are working with the Chief Judge on that question, but no conclusions have been reached yet.
On the complaints commission, there is a process following the release of a discussion document. There is a process of discussion that is underway, which will hopefully lead to a consensus in respect of how such a complaints commission can be structured.
J. Dalton: Can the Attorney General advise us as to what the anticipated cost is of issuing new service revolvers to the police force? Just as an aside -- even though I don't agree with this person -- somebody wrote to me recently complaining about the fact that the government is going to dispose of current handguns. I took issue with that, because I couldn't see that releasing a great volume of handguns onto the market would necessarily be desirable. If we get time for it later, I would also like to raise some questions about gun control, as I indicated yesterday, but that is a separate topic. The question, again, is about the anticipated costs of having to issue new service revolvers to our police forces.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are several costs. First of all, the cost to the Crown provincial could be in the order of $200,000. That cost is for us to purchase the old equipment, the old six-shooters, so we are sure that they do not somehow end up on the streets in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. So that is to ensure their destruction. There are obviously other costs involved for each of the departments: the costs of acquiring new issue and of training officers to use the new equipment.
As the member knows, the RCMP are also in the process of switching from the old revolver to a new semi-automatic model. There is $500,000 in our budget for the RCMP allocation this year for their costs for those new purchases, as there is in each of the next two years. That's part of the budget that we allocate to the RCMP, and a component of that is for their new weapons. I mentioned $500,000 in the regular RCMP budget, and there's an additional $250,000 in each of three years for both RCMP and municipal police. I was struggling to see whether that figure included both, and it does.
J. Dalton: It's helpful to know the financial implications, even though the implementation is, without question, long overdue. This is one of the welcome bits of news coming out of Oppal's recommendations for our police forces.
With regard to this consultation document, the release that accompanied it stated that people were to put in written submissions by the end of February 1995. I was a bit surprised to see that deadline, given that the document itself was released on February 3, 1995. It would seem to me that people didn't have a lot of time to collect their thoughts and respond to this. I will add, however, that the people I have heard from were all complimentary, at least in general, of both Justice Oppal and the document itself. Can the Attorney General advise us as to how many written submissions were received? Did they extend the deadline? Again, I would think that the end of February was a bit of a rush job for some.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As of last count, I think we had received 22 responses to the discussion document. The deadline -- as the member indicated -- in the discussion document for replies was March 31. We have not formally advised the people who were in receipt of that document, but that deadline is extended. We obviously need more time than February 3 to March 31 -- I think it was -- enabled, and so we're putting more time into that at the present.
J. Dalton: It's good to hear that the deadline has indeed been extended. We'll look forward to seeing the results of that. But, as I just said, certainly the people who have responded, that I'm aware of, are favourable to the concept.
I guess it relates back to one of the other observations, among many, that Justice Oppal made in his transmittal letter
[ Page 13655 ]
and the following recommendations. He was talking about public perception -- in particular, the comments that.... These are on page 3 of the transmittal letter, if members are interested in a reference point. He was talking there about the growing perception of the rate of crime in this province and this country -- something that we've touched upon in this committee through other discussion. He went on to say that, in fact -- as the Attorney General has reminded us on several occasions -- the rate of crime has not gone up; in fact, it has gone down. But there is a perception, as we all know from our communities and from people who contact us, that our streets and our justice system are not necessarily serving us as well as we might like. I think that's a very important provision that Justice Oppal has commented on, and of course, is advancing through looking at the complaint process as one example of how we might overcome the difficulty of perception, so that the public will have more confidence in policing in all aspects.
Perhaps, in a more general sense, I can invite the Attorney General, if there are any other areas of Justice Oppal's report that are also being examined.... As the Attorney General and, I'm sure, all members who have had an opportunity to look at the Oppal report know, there's a great volume of recommendations. They break down, basically, into...for example, community-based policing. It's a topic that other members have asked about in this committee. Can we look forward to more initiatives in that particular area? I know local police forces are certainly looking at this more and more seriously.
I think, for example, that the RCMP in North Vancouver now have two storefront operations -- for want of a better term. They would like to open others. I understand that West Vancouver, the other part of my riding, is also considering the aspect of community policing. West Vancouver, of course, is an independent police force, and North Vancouver is RCMP, but I think they both have the same general objective in mind. One of the drawbacks -- which I believe someone asked about earlier, but perhaps the Attorney General can help us with it -- is money. I know, in the case of the RCMP in North Vancouver, they want to buy into the whole concept of local and community policing, but they have to find the money from their own somewhat limited budgets. Can the Attorney General tell us whether there might be more funding of some form available in order that these local initiatives can be expanded? I know as a fact that, if we are going to get into serious implementation and discussion of public safety, it's going to happen, literally, right on the streets. The Attorney General, I know, is well aware of that as well.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's clear that the primary thrust of the Oppal report is in the direction of community policing, and he makes a very strong argument for us to move in those directions. I think community policing isn't simply one thing; it's a variety. It's really an attitude, a value system and an approach to policing. He makes those recommendations; we agree that is the way to go. Is there any more money for it? The answer to that is no, there isn't. In fact, if anything, from a population and inflation perspective, there's probably less money. So what we have to do is find different and better ways of bringing these changes about without throwing money at it. That's tough for governments, because governments, historically, have always thrown.... At least in the last two or three decades, since the Second World War probably, the general response of governments to problems of this kind is to throw money at them. Those options no longer exist, so we have to find different ways of doing it.
So maybe when a police department is thinking about another new car at $30,000 or whatever it is they cost fully equipped, they might think about 15 bicycles. That's a silly kind of direct equation, because you have to have 15 officers to ride them, instead of the one or two who drive the car. But the member knows what I mean by that: we need to rethink what it is we want to acquire; we need to rethink how it is we put officers in the community; we need to rethink where they work from -- is it one great big building or a series of smaller community offices? We need to rethink how all those structures go.
I don't pretend to know what the structure should be. I suspect it's going to be different in every community. The decisions around that are decisions for the local police detachment or department, depending on the case. I don't know what more I can say. Community policing is a priority; it's already happening. It hopefully will accelerate the pace of that change, but we're going to have to do it by reallocating resources rather than finding new money.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to move off the Oppal commission and start with a question. It's my understanding that legislation will be tabled shortly with respect to child protection. I know we can't talk about the specifics of that legislation, but I'd like to talk about policy and funding issues around that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd be delighted to listen to the exchange between the member and the Minister of Social Services when those estimates are before us.
J. Tyabji: Maybe I should have phrased the question slightly differently. I'm talking about criminal record checks and convicted offender registries -- that aspect of child protection, so that we don't have repeat offenders. Of course, I will be canvassing those other issues with the Minister of Social Services when her turn comes; but the Citizens Against Child Exploitation have had some correspondence with the Attorney General, and I just want to confirm that the legislation is still on its way to be tabled. Then we can canvass some policy issues.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If and when the House has legislation before it, we will have full opportunity to discuss the principle of the bill in second reading and the details in committee stage. It's really inappropriate to have that discussion here. It's against the rules, first of all. It leads us down a path that is counterproductive, because you have that debate around the bill, and at that point, if there are problems with the bill, members can make comments about it.
In terms of general process, there have been discussions with a wide variety of people in the community about what a criminal record check system would look like should one be implemented. Those discussions have been positive and useful, and both the Minister of Social Services and I have corresponded with many, many British Columbians on this issue, and thank them for their support as we work toward developing policies and legislation. But the debate about it is going to have to wait for the appropriate time.
[3:00]
J. Tyabji: As the Attorney General is aware, we're in the estimates debate. I don't want to be canvassing issues with
[ Page 13656 ]
respect to spending.... Since there was a draft form of this legislation in January -- as I understand it from a memo that was circulated when the session opened -- I would assume that the budget for the '95-96 fiscal year has within it some costs associated with bringing in a criminal record check registry and with the registry of convicted offenders. I know specifically that there's been a very strong push to ensure that convicted offenders, convicted pedophiles, repeat offenders and people deemed dangerous offenders are not able to get into a position of trust or authority. I can't canvass issues around this spending or budget allocations or what kind of programs are coming up in '95-96. If the Attorney General is going to tell me that the legislation will not be ready, then I would assume that he hasn't budgeted. Perhaps I'll come at the same question from a different angle. Has any money been set aside for programs that would protect children through convicted offenders registries?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because we always want to be prepared in this ministry, we have allocated up to $900,000 for this matter, just in the event that the Lieutenant-Governor decides to send us a message.
J. Tyabji: Without addressing legislation, I'd like to move to policy issues. I would like to know if the Attorney General is in the process of developing policies that would involve the community -- in getting some sort of community awareness or community interaction on repeat offenders or convicted pedophiles.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Maybe I'm getting tired and not hearing very well as a result of the pace of these estimates discussions, but I must say that I didn't understand the question. Do we want to involve the community in discussing these issues? Yes. Do we want their help? Yes. Do we want to try and prevent the outrage? Yes. But I don't know whether those were the questions.
J. Tyabji: I don't think this is very difficult. Without getting outside the rules of the House.... We don't have legislation to debate, so I'm not debating the legislation. We have a fiscal year -- '95-96. The Attorney General has indicated that he has designed his ministry -- or anticipated that programs may be coming which will be, I would assume, to some extent enabled by legislation. In addition to legislation, there are policy initiatives that can be taken by the Attorney General today, unless the Attorney General is going to tell me he's precluded from taking that because there isn't legislation in place. But as I understand it right now -- and I can't see how this couldn't be the case -- the Attorney General can get into a policy initiative for a community interaction for community involvement in identification, in notification of a dangerous offender or a resident pedophile -- someone who has been released. We know some of those programs have been occurring on an ad hoc basis, largely as a result of the initiative of the local RCMP or the local detachment of police. In terms of policy development, to what extent has the Attorney General set up a system so the community can start to be proactive in identifying repeat offenders?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The last thing that the implementation of the policy in various communities is, is ad hoc. British Columbia was the first province in the country to adopt a notification policy when we adopted that last November. I talked about that in these estimates either yesterday or last week, so it's there in Hansard for members to refer to. We have a notification policy -- as is mandated by section 25 of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation -- which enables police to inform the appropriate audience of the presence of a predator in the community. The notification can be narrow, or it can be as broad as notification through the local media. So the police have that authority.
In respect of education, we published a booklet last year. It was a handbook which was widely distributed throughout the province, giving advice and support, and helping people understand how to deal with issues around predators and children. In fact, the handbook was so well received that we are now getting requests from other provinces for them to draw from our handbook so that they can do similar programs. So it's not ad hoc; there are a series of initiatives underway. In addition to those two, we have been pressing for a national registry. The federal government has responded positively to that, and that work is underway at a national level. Beyond that, we are embarking on a number of initiatives, including the possibility of having expanded coverage of criminal record checks, which are already in place under the.... I'm just trying to think of the name of the statute. In child care situations now there is a criminal record check for individuals who work with children. That's already mandated within the policy of the minister responsible. What we're talking about, as the member knows, is the possibility of expanding that by legislation. So those are the initiatives: notification, registration, education and criminal record checks.
We've got a record that is second to none in this country on these issues. In addition to that, the criminal justice system treats these cases with a seriousness that is unmatched in the country. We have more applications for dangerous offender status than anybody else in the country; we have more success in respect of dangerous offender classifications than anybody else in the country. We are doing a lot in this province. More can be done and more will be done. It's underway, and we'll hopefully have an opportunity to talk about that in the House later this session.
J. Tyabji: With respect to notification, I'm still unclear as to whether or not there's a policy for consistent notification of the community. I know that currently the policy is to notify the local RCMP, and then it's at the discretion of the local detachment. That's what I was referring to. I would still deem that to be an ad hoc process, where it's up to the discretion of the local detachment. Is there going to be a policy where there will be an automatic notification of the community, and if so, how would that be extended?
With respect to a national registry, I would be very interested in some of the evidence of the provincial government's involvement in that national registry. As I understand it, that has been stalled at the federal level. I haven't seen a lot of.... If the Attorney General has different information and there is a national registry underway, I'd be very interested in that evidence, because that's not what has been coming out publicly. I haven't seen any releases from the Attorney General about the work that's being done with the federal government. I'd be interested in that.
Perhaps he could put on the record where the provincial government has been involved in lobbying for a national registry, and what his understanding is of the status of that
[ Page 13657 ]
right now. According to people who are working on this issue, it's not getting farther than people acknowledging that it's a good idea. It think the gun registry is a lot more likely to go ahead in the next little period of time.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect, first of all, of the notification policy, guidance to both municipal and RCMP detachments and departments has gone out from the ministry. Because they're a federal force, the RCMP have operated under a different set of rules. We are trying at the moment to organize a consistent approach between both municipal police and the RCMP, and that's underway.
In respect of the pace of the federal government's implementation of a national registry, this is the first I've heard of it. The member obviously has better sources than I do. It's the first I've heard that the federal government has stalled this initiative. I suspect that if they had done that, they would have told us, so I doubt that very much, frankly.
I have a lot of confidence in the federal Justice department and in the federal Justice minister. I actually think that Mr. Rock can do more than one thing at a time, and just because gun control is at the top of the agenda doesn't mean that other initiatives can't proceed at the same time.
J. Tyabji: Going back to that other question, I'd be very curious to know what.... Perhaps the Attorney General could present me with a list of how the provincial government has been involved. Have there been some meetings, or is there correspondence from the national registry? What is the latest information that he has as of mid-April of this year, when Monica Rainey came back from the Citizens Against Child Exploitation? That's where the information came out that the national registry had not progressed far, that there is nothing concrete in place, and that they certainly seemed a lot more interested in gun control. I would be happy to present a few documents on that. I know the Attorney General can have direct communication with that group at any time.
With respect to what the federal government is doing, is there a consistent dialogue from the provincial government on a national registry, and if so, what form is that taking?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the meetings, both at the political level and at the staff level, we have said to the federal government that we think a registry is necessary. Given the transience in this country, we think a provincial registry is inappropriate, and we want the federal government to establish a national registry. They said they agree, and they're working on it.
J. Tyabji: Could the Attorney General inform the House whether he has received a lot of correspondence about changing the age of consent so that it is now 14?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't say how many letters. There have been some -- not a lot, but some. It is an issue that the criminal justice branch of the ministry has been looking at. It is obviously a federal issue. It is a Criminal Code provision, so it would be up to the federal government to respond to the question. We have been looking at it, and I would expect that discussions have been held between our senior officials and federal senior officials about the question, but it's still at that stage.
J. Tyabji: I would like to put on the record that I have received quite a few letters on this, and that there is a parents' group forming in Kelowna. With the implications of the change in age, I find it interesting that they are finding it extremely difficult even to have their children in a position where they are out of harm, because the children are deemed to be adults at a much earlier age. I am sure we can go over that. I will keep the Attorney General informed as those meetings progress, but it is becoming an enormous issue. If it is completely in the federal arena, the purpose would obviously be for the Attorney General to pass that information on, but I know there is some provincial jurisdiction on this.
Has the Attorney General seen some of the Australian examples? Now we are getting into an area that I personally have come to with a great degree of shock, because I didn't know it existed. There is a growing industry of child-sex tourism overseas. The Attorney General is nodding, so he obviously knows about it. There have been some precedents set in legislation so that people within the jurisdiction of British Columbia and Canada who participate in that tourist industry would come back and then be prosecuted. Australia has taken a leadership stand on this, I think. I would like to know if the Attorney General is aware of this, if this is something British Columbia is considering asking Canada to get involved in, whether B.C. has the jurisdiction to draw up those kinds of rules and whether that is even being contemplated right now.
[3:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have the jurisdiction. Yes, the issues have been drawn to our attention in a variety of ways. During the discussions on child prostitution held around the province last year, I guess it was, both the 14-year-age issue in the Criminal Code and the international tourist trade with respect to this issue were very much drawn to our attention. The ministry has been sorting through these issues and has been in discussions with the federal government as to where responsibility would lie for any change. As members know, criminal law is federal law, and we simply have the responsibility of enforcing it.
J. Tyabji: Were there any recommendations on this issue by the provincial government to the federal government after those hearings?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The matter is on the deputy ministers' agenda at their next meeting. The federal and provincial deputy ministers meet regularly, and that issue is on that agenda. We have so far communicated only general concerns by way of letter to the minister. I've written to the Justice minister, and the Premier has written to the Prime Minister, but those are more general statements of our concern. The actual specific recommendations about what might be done by way of amendment to federal law are on the agenda for the deputy ministers, and they will be talking about it there.
J. Tyabji: If we could go to a different subject now.... As the Attorney General is aware, the office of the chief coroner came out with a report with respect to illicit narcotic overdose deaths in British Columbia. What has been the follow-up to that report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The response to the Cain report is actually being led by the Health ministry. I'm not trying to evade it; I will answer the question. I just wanted to get this on the floor.
[ Page 13658 ]
The member will remember that the former Minister of Health and I in July '93, if my memory's correct, asked Vince Cain to do this investigation into the illicit use of drugs. That, as the member remembers, was following a series of apparent heroin deaths in a number of communities, including quite a number in my own community. The report was released -- it's funny; in this job you lose sense of what day, what month and sometimes what year it is -- earlier this year or late last year in November, before Christmas. At that time, we indicated that we wanted there to be as much public discussion as there could be about the issues raised by Mr. Cain. We took no position on it, as I said in the House the other day, other than to say there should be extensive public discussion around his recommendations.
We also established an interministerial committee, which is led by the Ministry of Health, to deal with issues that flowed from the report. Remember that there were a variety of recommendations. Public attention was focused on the question of legalizing or decriminalizing some hard drugs, but in fact there were many other recommendations, and the interministry task force led by Health is looking at those right now. I raised the issues in the report and distributed it to the federal-provincial ministers' conference in January.
I think that's it, from my perspective. The member might make a note to herself, in her b.f. file for the Health ministry estimates, to deal with the Minister of Health about a number of initiatives that he and his ministry are taking. In fact, I think some of the recommendations have already begun to be implemented.
J. Tyabji: I have just a brief follow-up then. What is the public process that's been put into place to discuss the coroner's report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no formal public process. I have on every occasion urged the media, community groups and others to talk about it, but there is no formal public process to lead the discussion.
J. Tyabji: It's fair to say, then, that changes won't be implemented through the Attorney General's ministry for this fiscal year as a result of the coroner's report. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's not fair to say that. We need to remember that some of the recommendations dealt with federal issues in respect of the Criminal Code -- the question of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Those issues wouldn't be dealt with by my ministry at any point, one way or another, in any event. Other recommendations in the report cross several ministries: Social Services, Health and Attorney General. As I said a minute ago, some of those questions have already begun to be implemented; others are being looked at by the interministry committee, led by Health. I can't predict what conclusions we'll reach following the work being done by that committee.
J. Tyabji: Is there a point at which we will be advised of which aspects of the coroner's report have been adopted or what has been submitted to the interministerial committee for discussion? Are we going to have to canvass each of those points separately in the estimates?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The interministry committee has the entire report. They're looking at the full report and will make whatever recommendations that they feel are appropriate through the deputy ministers and on through to cabinet. I don't know what form that's going to take, nor do I know when it might occur.
I just want to correct myself. Earlier, on the decriminalization or legalization of drugs, I referred to the Criminal Code, and I think I meant to talk about the Narcotic Control Act. That's just a technical point.
J. Tyabji: My last questions are: what is the extent of funding in this fiscal year for the CounterAttack program, how involved are communities going to be in that program, and are there any special initiatives?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may want to bring that matter forward during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. That's where it belongs.
C. Tanner: Are you able to identify, in your statements and in your budget, that money which is raised through fines by police forces?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To answer the unasked question first, it's about $65 million.
C. Tanner: I'm not sure what the unasked question was, but thank you for the answer. Are you able, then, to identify by degree those fines that would be levied because a stopped person did not have his licence with him? Alternatively, are you able to identify that amount of money which is raised because of a lack of insurance?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is the third time I've done this in the last ten minutes, but that kind of question really has to go to the minister responsible for the Motor Vehicle Act. That's where all of this.... My only involvement is that we pay part of the costs for the police, who end up enforcing the Motor Vehicle Act. The primary responsibility, for the most part, is under the Motor Vehicle Act, which is under the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I don't know whether that ministry has their fines system broken down by category to that extent, but the member could ask that minister then.
C. Tanner: Since you are responsible for the RCMP, surely you give them their instructions as to what they will enforce and what they won't enforce.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I most certainly do not. The RCMP are independent of political direction, as are all police forces in this province -- and in this country, for that matter. With the RCMP provincial force, I provide a general strategic overview at the beginning of each year, which establishes in a broad, provincial way what the priorities of the Attorney General are for each year. But I most certainly do not direct them as to which offences they should pay the most attention or to which particular matters they should or should not devote their time. That would be an inappropriate political intervention into policing, and I don't have any part of it.
C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, while I appreciate the fact that you might not personally, and that there might not be political intervention, as you call it, I happen to disagree with your point of view on that. However, that's neither here nor there.
[ Page 13659 ]
There are police boards who do give direction to them, and they are appointed at your.... In some cases, some of the members of those police boards are appointed by your department, I believe.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the role of the police board is similar to my role in this respect: the police board in a particular municipality -- in the 12 municipalities where they exist under the statute -- will, no doubt, provide general directions to the department about their priorities. It may be that the community has expressed a concern about a particular kind of criminal activity or a particular kind of statute violation, such as Motor Vehicle Act infractions, that they want the police to spend more time on. So the police board may say to the police chief: "We'd like you to spend more time this year doing this general kind of enforcement rather than that general kind of enforcement." In the same way, I can provincially -- and I do, provincially -- establish overall guidelines about what I think the priorities are in policing in the province. But the reason I reacted the way I did at the beginning of this little discussion is because of the member's first questions, which were isolating particular kind of offences. The member can be sure that I do not give those kinds of instructions. They are more general than that, and I expect that the police board instructions similarly are more general.
C. Tanner: I've got one more question in this area; perhaps the minister could comment. It has been my observation in more recent times, say in the last five or six years since the police have access in their cars to computers, and they are able to ascertain whether or not a person has a licence, that not only do they know immediately whether or not a person's got a licence, they're still charging somebody $75 for not having one. It used to be the custom just a few years ago that they asked you to report to the nearest police station within 48 hours and produce your licence. So now they know immediately whether an offence has occurred, and they are imposing a licence. What it's doing, in my view, Mr. Minister, is putting the police in the position of being money collectors only and not enforcers of the law. The same thing is happening insofar as insurance is concerned. They can immediately ascertain through the computers in their cars whether or not you have insurance. I don't think they're using discretion, and surely some of that direction must come from your ministry.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I do not say to the police, directly or indirectly: "This is a good law and this is a bad law." If I think the law which requires the member and me to have our driver's licence in our possession when we're driving is a bad law, I would recommend to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that she amend the Motor Vehicle Act rather than go out to the police and say: "I think that's a bad law. Don't enforce that one." The member should put his mind to what might happen if Attorneys General over the years decided which were the good laws and which were the bad laws, and went out and instructed the police to enforce the good ones but not the bad ones. There could be a sorry state in our society if that kind of interference with the independent discretion of police officers was embarked upon. I'm not going down that road.
[3:30]
C. Tanner: Perhaps I will continue the discussion in private with the minister, because we obviously disagree. I can give you examples where, in my view, the public suffers and the reputation of the police suffers with the present usage of what's going on.
If I might, I'd like to change the subject and ask the minister if he's familiar with a letter written to his ministry recently requesting bulk research access to land titles documents as far as builders' liens are concerned. Is he familiar with a letter which was written fairly recently, delivered by hand to the land titles office, concerning this subject?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When you receive hundreds and hundreds of letters every week, from such a brief description it's dangerous to say that I am familiar with a letter. But I think I am, and if it's the same letter we're talking about, we've fixed the problem.
C. Tanner: I didn't catch the tail end of the minister's.... Did he say he thinks it's a problem or he thinks it's not a problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If this reference is to the same letter that is in my mind at the moment, we've fixed the problem.
C. Tanner: It was from The Yellow Sheet Review Inc. Is that the problem he's referring to? The Yellow Sheet Review Inc. -- which is an unfortunate name, I must admit.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't recall that particular reference. Maybe the best way of proceeding would be for the member to go to his office and make a photocopy, let us have it, and then come back in 20 minutes and we'll resume the discussion.
D. Mitchell: I have a few questions for the hon. Attorney General. Before I commence, I'd like to complete my understanding of an agreement the hon. Attorney General made in the committee this morning about freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Attorney General. Could the Attorney General confirm that he has agreed to provide information on the number -- and I think he actually did cite the number this morning -- and cost of FOI requests to his ministry over the last fiscal year, as well as those requests that have gone through to local police forces throughout British Columbia? If he has anything further to add at this time, I would appreciate that as well.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether this will help, but let me try. Since it started, the number was 777 in the last fiscal year. We could break that down, and I'll get that. I think I said that the cost on an annual basis was $600,000 and eight full-time-equivalents. So you just have to do the arithmetic -- whatever the number is that I gave you for the fiscal year, divide that into $600,000 and that's the cost. In respect of the requests to various municipal police departments, at the end of each fiscal or calendar year -- I'm not sure which -- they will submit a report to the commissioner of freedom of information and privacy which would detail the number of complaints that were received. Short of that, the member could write to the various chairs of the police boards -- in other words, the mayors -- or to the chiefs, and ask them directly what number they have.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to open up a new line of questioning, but if my friend from Saanich North and the Islands would
[ Page 13660 ]
like to complete his line of questioning on this document, I'd be more than happy to give way to him, if he's ready to do that now. If not....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Okay, hon. Chair, I'll proceed.
I'd like to refer the hon. Attorney General to a statement he made when we commenced this exercise a few days back, when the minister made his opening statements during this review of his annual spending estimates. The minister made a very extensive opening statement, and I think it was quite informative. He stated that three main principles guide the Ministry of Attorney General in the province: "...British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities; every citizen has a right to fair and just treatment under the law; and all British Columbians deserve to have a responsive justice system in which they can place their confidence." Those are the three principles that he has set; those are the goals that he has established; and those are the principles that I believe he wants to be held accountable for, because he wouldn't put those principles out there assuming that he wouldn't want to be held accountable for them. I suppose if we have a system of performance management in place, the minister should set his goals and we should hold him accountable for those principles and goals.
I'd like to tell the hon. Attorney General that with the first principle that he set out -- British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities -- I actually think he's doing a pretty good job, and I'd like to commend him for that. I might draw to his attention a public opinion poll, a scientific poll, that was done in my own constituency just this February, asking the question of whether or not people felt safe in their neighbourhoods -- whether or not their neighbourhoods provided them with an adequate and reasonable degree of personal safety. In my constituency, West Vancouver-Garibaldi, over 90 percent said they did. Whether or not West Vancouver-Garibaldi is representative, I'm not sure; but if it is, over 90 percent of my constituents feel that their community, their neighbourhood, provides them with a reasonable degree of safety. So, on principle No. 1 on the report card, I think the minister is doing a good job, and he deserves some commendation for that.
On principle No. 2, I'm not so sure; and on principle No. 3, I'm not so sure as well. Before I go into those, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry has conducted any public opinion research in the last fiscal year to determine whether or not he is doing a good job provincewide in these areas, starting off with the three principles that he has established. Has he done any polling, any public opinion research, any focus groups or any kind of market research at all among the general public of British Columbia to determine if they feel safe in their neighbourhoods, whether or not they feel the justice system is serving their best interests or whether their satisfaction is high or low on these three principles that he has established for himself?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the scheme of things, we haven't done a lot of polling or focus groups. We have done some, and we have done that around issues on this very topic -- about how people feel in their communities on security and crime issues. I think in total in the last fiscal year we may have spent as much as $80,000 on both polling and focus group attitudinal surveys to find out what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, how people feel, what people want and just to get some sense of the community in a scientific way.
We also use other polling to help us get a read on the community. I guess the only thing I want to add is that in general the Canadian work that's being done on this demonstrates that we are in the lowest third of 12 western countries in terms of fear levels. So we're on the better side of that measure. That doesn't get to the real questions of how it is here in British Columbia and how it is in particular neighbourhoods, but I'm actually pleased to hear about the survey in the member's constituency. I'm not sure what more I can say.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the Attorney General is doing some public opinion research in these areas, because I think it's useful to know what the attitudes of the public are.
The hon. Attorney General indicated that he has spent about $80,000 on public opinion research in the last year. The Attorney General will also know that this has been a source of controversy in terms of making these polls, this research, available to the public on a timely basis. After all, it's paid for with taxpayers' dollars; it should be made available when it can be. Some of the polls are deposited in the B. C. archives and records service across the street, but they're not deposited there with any timeliness.
I'm wondering if the Attorney General can indicate what taxpayers paid the $80,000 for over the last year? What was the subject of the polls? If it's too complex to get into now, I'd be pleased to have a list. It would be interesting to know what kinds of areas the hon. Attorney General has his ministry canvassing in terms of public opinion research.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The questions and data were primarily around crime and security issues: how people felt, differences between men and women, differences between age groups, differences between rural and urban communities -- that kind of questioning. I would be very happy to share.... I haven't looked at the detailed breakout myself. But the member is certainly most welcome to sit down with whoever in our staff is most familiar with the data and to go through it with our staff if he wants to.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the Attorney General; I will take him up on that offer.
The hon. Attorney General's second principle that he established for himself was fair and just treatment under the law. That's what it dealt with: fair and just treatment under the law. While there might not be too many overt complaints about that, I wonder about the Attorney General's definition of just treatment. A number of British Columbians have a general sense of grievance that there isn't just treatment for all British Columbians under the law -- that we're not all treated the same under the law. There is a concern about that, some kind of latent concern. The hon. Attorney General says one of the principles that guides his ministry is that every citizen has a right to fair and just treatment under the law. Could he describe that a little, without getting into too long a philosophical discussion? How would he measure that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the measuring is not done in a scientific or objective way; it's rather more subjective. When
[ Page 13661 ]
people who have legitimate grievances about the justice system continue to complain about it being unfair to them or to their communities, then my measurement would be that we had not yet reached this objective.
What I want to talk about in this -- fair and just treatment under the law -- is questions of access to the justice system that have been denied in this society to too many people. Everybody will have their own list and concerns, but for me the issue revolved around aboriginal justice. I felt this growing up in this province in the interior, where I watched how the justice system in the broadest sense dealt with aboriginal people I went to school with. I certainly had my concerns heightened over the years by representing the constituency of North Island, which has a significant population of aboriginal people. My concerns about that were heightened further by reading I had done and conversations I had been involved in about justice issues in the Cariboo, which led, of course, to the appointment of Tony Sarich to look at justice issues up there.
What I'm talking about here is opening the system and making it fair, equitable and accessible to people who have not had access to it. It's not just aboriginal people. It's poor people, women and a variety of -- to use the jargon -- disadvantaged folk in our society. If you're white, male and wealthy, the justice system is pretty good. If you're none of those three, it's not so good. My objectives have been to try to redress those imbalances.
I think we've made a lot of progress. We've established the Violence Against Women program, which is leading to far more charges being brought forward against men who beat their wives. We're trying to make sure the legal aid system is more responsive to needs, particularly in aboriginal and rural communities, but dealing with poverty issues. We're dealing with child sexual abuse issues. We've had extensive work done over the question of access to justice for deaf people, which flowed out of the Jericho situation, and work is continuing in that area. Much more is going on. I'm sure that if I sat down with my staff, we could draw a long, long list of initiatives that are underway. That's what I mean by No. 2.
[3:45]
Have we met that? If the member is saying that he's giving me good marks on No. 1 but not so good marks on No. 2 because we haven't met that objective, I agree. We have only been at this for three years, and we've only had this kind of concentrated focus with a determined minister to push it for three and a half years now. This is the work of a generation, not the work of a term in government.
J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: I'm actually making an introduction a little belatedly, and I regret that we were unable to make it while these people were here. With us in the gallery today we have had Mr. Baker, a teacher, plus 18 students of the Tri-City Academy in Pasco, Washington, U.S.A. I would appreciate it if the House would join with me in making them welcome.
D. Mitchell: I've been talking with the hon. Attorney General about the three principles that guide his ministry. His last comments perhaps were more appropriately directed toward principle No. 3, the need for a more responsive justice system. Having said that, I would like to ask him a question about this, because this is the guiding principle with respect to which I would like to offer some criticisms to the hon. Attorney General.
When we talk about the fact that our citizens deserve to have a more responsive justice system, a lot of people's minds might turn to the corrections system, in particular, and to some of the problems, challenges and dilemmas that have existed in the last year and that continue to this present day about public confidence in the corrections system. In this area I must say to the hon. Attorney General that I am not sure he's meeting the test that he's established for himself -- not yet. A lot more progress needs to be made. Feelings last year during the Danny Perrault case, the follow-up Prowse inquiry and the case that the hon. Attorney General himself referred to in his opening comments -- the tragic Gamache case here on Vancouver Island -- have made those points. There are current cases ongoing in the corrections branch that deserve some scrutiny as well.
I certainly think that between the provincial corrections system and the policy on temporary absences, which I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about, combined with the federal parole system as well -- when we learned, for instance, about the tragic abduction and murder of Melanie Carpenter earlier this year -- we look at the question of classification and dangerous offenders. The hon. Attorney General referred to that sometime earlier during this estimates review. But I have to ask whether the Attorney General is failing the principle that he establishes for himself here about the need for a more responsive system of justice.
I would like to know if the minister would like to comment on the actions that his ministry has taken specifically in the last year under review, when it comes to tightening up the corrections system, being more responsive to the public and the follow-up to the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case. What specific measures has he taken? He's talked in generalities about tightening up procedures and taking action, but we haven't really talked about specifics in the corrections branch of his ministry itself.
We know, for instance, that the corrections system has a manual of standards. We also know that many of the regulations in this manual of standards were violated last year, particularly around the instance of the Danny Perrault case.
The whole policy of temporary absences needs to be scrutinized and reviewed, so we can restore confidence that we don't have dangerous offenders and others who are out on the streets on these so-called temporary absences. We've heard strange language enter our lexicon. We've heard about terminal temporary absences -- the strangest use of the English language that I can imagine. A temporary terminal absence or a terminal temporary absence: it means there's a criminal on the loose, I think. I guess that's how the public interprets that.
If the hon. Attorney General can tell us how he's going to meet the principle he's established for himself about the fact that our citizens deserve to have a more responsive justice system, how is it responding to those crises?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The manual that the member was brandishing is one of two manuals. I think he has the Manual of Standards, which is the standards of service delivery. We
[ Page 13662 ]
also have a Manual of Operations, which is a manual that deals with how we deliver the services and how it works -- in detail, actually -- in the system. It's the second manual, the one the member doesn't have, where changes have been made to respond to a number of things that have occurred in the last little while -- in particular, the recommendations of the Prowse report, the recommendations made by Barbara Fisher in the Gamache matter, concerns that I had that go beyond what was recommended there, and other issues have been raised.
We have not only changed the operational procedures but we have also implemented random reviews of those practices to be sure that our staff are in fact following the operational manual and adhering to the standards. We have done a fair amount of reorganizing in terms of who is reponsible for various parts of the ministry in the last year. I think it's fair to say that there have been quite a number of changes.
We established the independent investigation, inspection and standards office, which now reports to me rather than through to the ministry. I meet regularly with Mr. Anderson to hear his firsthand recommendations as to reports he's done, and we follow up on those reports. In fact, there's paper on the desk in front of us here that shows the progress we're making in respect of all of these recommendations.
In terms of temporary terminal absences, or temporary terminal.... I have the same trouble the member has; those of us who don't work in the system have trouble sometimes with the jargon. The primary objective through all of the early-release programs or the release-to-counselling, or whatever decisions are made in respect of classification -- not just classification, but release decisions.... The primary and overriding objective and responsibility is to ensure public safety. That is something we pay full attention to. I'm not going to try to hide from this at all: there were mistakes made. We think we have changed the rules sufficiently and put in place the proper mechanisms to avoid making those mistakes again, at least for the same reason. They may occur for other reasons; I sure hope not. No system is perfect, and I wouldn't predict that we will be without problems in the future. But we have had a relatively susccessful period over the last few months where the problems that have occurred -- and they do occur almost every day -- have not been of the magnitude of the ones that required us to establish an inquiry.
D. Mitchell: The Attorney General doesn't have an easy job; it's one of the more challenging jobs in public administration in our province. But when it comes to the corrections area, there is a concern among the general public about the kind of follow-up that takes place when you do have serious problems, such as in the Danny Perrault case of last year. I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about the follow-up that has taken place and get a little bit more specific, if I could.
I recall quite vividly that during the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case last year, Danny Perrault himself testified at the inquiry about how easy it was to obtain illegal drugs within the B.C. corrections sytem. I don't know if the Attorney General remembers that statement or had it drawn to his attention, but it's right there in the transcript -- I can assure him.
My question is: what specific actions have been taken by the Attorney General ministry since that time to address this serious problem? Where one inmate within the correction system states that it's very, very common -- it wasn't just him.... But he stated on the record that it was very, very common within the corrections system to obtain illegal drugs; it was very easy to do. There were suggestions made -- perhaps not substantiated, but nevertheless some serious comments -- that corrections staff themselves might be responsible for smuggling illegal drugs into the corrections facilities. What specific actions has the Attorney General taken, or what portions of the corrections branch have taken specific action, to address that serious problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The question of drugs in jails is a serious problem, has been historically a serious problem, and it is one that I think exists in every penal system in every part of the world. The first thing one needs to remember is that two-thirds of the people who are incarcerated are there indirectly, I think, as a result of having a substance abuse problem. So to begin with, there is a huge demand for drugs from a population which has been dependent on those drugs when they're out, and they come in and there's this huge demand. So one can imagine the ingenuity that is employed to satisfy the craving that these people have for drugs. So we have to do two things in response to that: we have to try to reduce the demand for the drugs by way of alcohol and drug programming -- that's No. 1, so that people don't want the substances; and secondly, we have to find ways of stopping the drugs from coming in.
I'm just going to, from these notes, talk to members about some of the things that happen. Some inmates will ask visitors to bring drugs in with them when they come in. Members will have had complaints -- I know I have had -- from visitors who get searched -- people demanding that their rights are being violated because they're being searched when they go into prison. Some drugs get into prison by way of visitors. Sometimes there's a threat to visitors from an inmate. Even though the visitor may not want to bring drugs in with them, they're being threatened in a way that makes them bring it in. We actually had a case where drugs were smuggled in a baby's diaper. I don't mean somebody carrying a diaper in, I mean a baby wearing the diaper with the drugs inside the diaper. We're talking about desperate people here.
We do regular searches, and we sometimes use specially trained dogs. We're actually sending somebody down to the United States now to look at a particular dog-sniffing program that exists down.... Dog-sniffing; that's not right -- drug-sniffing dog program. I'm getting tired. It's funny when you're standing here. This is the fourth day of this. I guess you get into a kind of pattern where you don't know what you're saying anymore; you don't hear yourself. In any event, we're looking at some of the modern -- not modern so much as contemporary -- sources that are available for dogs, because that clearly is a useful way of proceeding.
[4:00]
In short -- if I can get myself to focus here a bit better and not wander as I'm doing -- we need to try to minimize the demand through drug and alcohol programs. We're doing that as best we can. We need to try to minimize the importing of drugs into the facility by various means, whether it's ingenious things like filling a tennis ball with drugs and bouncing it into the facility.... I visited one particular facility, and some of the correctional officers showed me all of the things that were on the roof of that particular facility, where people who were throwing things over the wall had missed and things
[ Page 13663 ]
landed on the roof rather than in the yard, where they were intended. So there are all kinds of efforts being made. It's a serious problem, and we've got to deal with it in a serious way. We're doing the best we can.
D. Mitchell: I'm sure the Attorney General is right: human ingenuity knows few boundaries when it comes to this problem. But one of the areas that the hon. Attorney General did not mention was the possibility that some corrections staff themselves may be involved in transporting illegal drugs into our prisons and correctional facilities. The reason I raise that is because allegations have been brought to my attention regarding this as recently as today. This is a problem that goes back to Danny Perrault.
I'd like to get quite specific about this, but before I do, I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about the office that he referred to: the independent investigation, inspection and standards office of the Ministry of Attorney General. During the last session of this House, the hon. Attorney General brought forward legislation to provide for that office. He brought forward specific legislation in an amendment to the Correction Act to provide for that new independent office that reports directly to him. Since the new inspector reports directly to the Attorney General, if he's investigating anything, presumably the Attorney General would know about it. My question is: could the Attorney General tell the committee today how many investigations have been undertaken at the initiative of this new, independent office that reports to him? Could the Attorney General relate to this committee the subject matters that have been looked into by this new, independent office, particularly those in the corrections area?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer as to how many off the top of.... The member may know, because he may have asked or he may have had one of his staff ask one of my staff that question. I haven't asked that question. I'm just going to see if I can answer this question by counting this list. I don't know if this will be the full list or not. I apologize to members for doing it this way. These are the reports that I've had, and they appear to total nine. That doesn't include any ongoing work that Mr. Anderson may be involved in at the present time. These are matters that were reported out to me.
D. Mitchell: When the hon. Attorney General brought forward the amendments to the legislation providing for this new, independent office last year, a great deal was made over this appointment as a direct response to some of the problems and the erosion of confidence in the corrections system. But now there's a question about how we can find out what this new, independent office, which reports directly to the hon. Attorney General, is doing. The hon. Attorney General presumably knows what the inspector is doing, but how can members of the public -- how can members of this House, in fact -- find out what is going on? Do we have to wait until the annual report is tabled in the House? If that's the case, we all know that annual reports are tabled quite a bit after the fact. They're sometimes a whole fiscal year after the fact, and that's not very timely. That's certainly not responsive, and it doesn't meet the hon. Attorney General's own principle that he established for himself about responsiveness within the justice system. Given the grave public concern over the state of affairs in corrections in this province, we need to do a lot better.
I'm wondering if the Attorney General would be prepared to either bring his new, independent investigator into this estimates process so we can have some questions answered, or if he has a better suggestion for how we as members of the House and how the general public can find out, in a timely fashion, what this independent officer, this person who's in charge of investigations and inspections within the justice system in our province, is doing. I think that might alleviate some of the concerns of the public. We need to do a better job of communication. That's the gist of what I'm trying to say here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows -- I hope he does -- that my approach to these matters is to disclose. I always believe that you disclose everything and you tell everything and you report everything, and everybody's better off if you do that. But there are limitations on that which involve privacy matters, so first of all, you can't talk about the names. There are huge limitations in this ministry in respect of ongoing court cases or continuing police investigations. In many of these case, if not all, there is some form of continuing legal action or investigation. As a result, I can't even talk about the cases in a specific way, as much as I might like to. One of the burdens of this office is knowing this stuff -- knowing you can't talk about it and knowing that every day you might do what my friend and colleague Bob Mitchell did, which is to slip. So it's onerous in that respect.
What I can say to the member -- this doesn't answer his question in the way that we both would like it to be answered, but it's the best I can do at this point -- is that Mr. Anderson reports to me. He makes recommendations about changes that should happen or procedures that should be amended. He's not limited in what he can say to me. If my staff don't want to do what he recommends but I think they should, I know about that and I can direct the staff. We haven't had those kinds of difficulties with this office.
I'll just say to the member that we have a chart in respect of these major investigations. This is not the regular reviews, the disciplinary cases and the auditing that is done by Mr. Anderson. We have a chart which has one heading as investigation; the next is the date the report is received; then a column of recommendations from Mr. Anderson; another column which is the branch response -- the action taken in respect of the recommendations; and a final column, which is the outstanding issues -- the ones that are not yet acted upon. I'm delighted to say that in most of the pages of this report I have in my hand, the final column is white, in the sense that it is blank, because in most cases the outstanding issues have been resolved.
The fact that I can't share that with the member or anybody else bothers me at least as much as it bothers the member. The reason I can't do that is that I think in every single case we either have YOA considerations, civil suit considerations, police investigation considerations, a trial yet to occur because someone is in remand, or an appeal. There are a variety of situations that preclude me from commenting.
I suspect that if there was a report at the end of the year in the annual report -- and it may be a good idea to have in the annual report a section which summarizes the activities of this department each year -- it would not give the kind of detail the member might be looking for. Nonetheless, that's a good idea, and I will talk to my deputy about whether there can be some report in the annual report about the recommendations of Mr. Anderson.
[ Page 13664 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting here from what we know as the Chilcotin country -- the Tsilhquot'in -- are some of the honoured elders of the Xeni Gwet'in nation, the Nemaiah Valley first nation. They are Francis Williams, Martin Quilt, Margaret Quilt, William Setah, Henry Solomon, Mable Solomon, Ronnie Solomon, Eileen Williams, Elsie Quilt, Eugene William, Mabel William, Douglas Lulua, Lucy Lulua, Madeline Setah and Marty Solomon. Would the members please make them welcome.
D. Mitchell: I would like to finish off this topic of the independent office of investigation, inspection and standards of the minister. The minister said that he will look at the possibility of putting some kind of reference into the ministry's annual report on this. I think that meets some level of reporting or accountability, but it certainly is not timely, especially given the length of time it takes to get annual reports from ministries tabled in this House.
I wonder if the minister would agree, before the review is completed for this set of estimates for his ministry this year, to table even just a list of the number and kinds of cases that have been taken on by Mr. Anderson. The reason I ask this is that my understanding is that this office would be subject to freedom-of-information legislation in any event.
I'm not asking the minister to get into an area of anything that is sub judice or that he's prevented from exploring or discussing the details of. He made a great deal out of establishing this office. It was going to be a direct response to problems that occurred in the corrections system last year. If we're going to meet the minister's own test of responsiveness to the public, surely there must be some way of timely reporting. Before we're asked to vote on the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General this year, for the corrections branch in particular, would he agree to table in this committee at least a list of the cases and the kinds of cases that Mr. Anderson is looking at, so that we can be satisfied that this office is actually performing the function the hon. Attorney General said it was established for?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Aside from the technical prohibition against tabling documents in committee, I would be happy to share with the member, as soon as I can get it organized, a document.... Hopefully, it can be done overnight, but I can't promise that. It's a bit unfair to staff who already work 12 hours a day and more, in some cases, but I will, with dispatch, ask the staff to prepare a summary document of the kinds of activities that that office has been involved with since it was established. I won't be able to give names of particular cases in most cases. If that's possible under all the rules that prohibit me from doing things.... If I can indicate particular names, I will; if I can't, we'll just talk about it more generally. I undertake to get that kind of report, that document, to the member, hopefully tomorrow. I hope the member won't insist that we drag these estimates out while we await that. I promise him that I will get that to him as quickly as possible. If we can do it by tomorrow, it will be tomorrow.
D. Mitchell: I'm going to give way to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands, to follow up on a matter that was raised earlier in this committee. I would like to let the hon. Attorney General know that I do intend to pursue the line of questioning I have commenced with him leading to this issue, this serious matter in Corrections dealing with the obtaining of illegal drugs within correctional facilities and in prisons in particular. I will continue with that in a moment, but I would like to give way to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands first.
C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, I believe you now have at hand a copy of the letter that I referred to earlier. I was wondering whether you could inform the House whether or not you've made a decision rescinding that decision that was made by your ministry on April 1.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The letter the member refers to is dated today and arrived today. I actually yearn for the days when mail went by ship. One could then take more than an hour to ponder one's reply before sending it back, because you could always argue that it missed a sailing and therefore was six months late. The day of fax machines just drives me crazy.
[4:15]
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
So it arrived today. It refers to an issue that I was aware of, because a year ago, The Yellow Sheet Review, which is the source of the letter, was advised that the land title branch viewed the bulk-search activities as non-compliant with the freedom-of-information legislation. So they were given a year to get ready for the day when that bulk searching would stop, and that happened three weeks ago. Then, when Yellow Sheet was advised that they could no longer use the bulk search method, their response was, "well, others are doing so" -- to which the branch responded by identifying and advising others that effective April 1, three weeks ago or so, no bulk searching and what they describe as "grazing" practices would be permitted.
However, access to builders' lien information continues to be available on a title-by-title basis, and people can use B.C. OnLine to obtain the information as it relates to any particular parcel of land. From the land titles perspective, this method of search and retrieval is far more timely and accurate than the bulk search or grazing methods. So that's the answer. It may not satisfy the member, but that's the answer to the question.
C. Tanner: I'm sure the minister is aware that most of those sorts of searches are company-to-company or company-to-individual. And surely, once it's a company issue, it's a public issue. Normally speaking, these searches aren't made on a personal basis. They're made by a company that has a lien, maybe against an individual but frequently against a company -- in which case, if it's company business, it's public business, surely.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that I can answer that question. This is not actually the best forum to resolve these kinds of issues. The best way would be either by way of a meeting with the director of the land titles branch and the member, and following it up -- and if there are then unresolved issues, to follow it up with a meeting with me -- or, alternatively, by way of writing letters back and forth to each other until we resolve the issues.
[ Page 13665 ]
It's difficult to pursue the issue in this kind of forum, because I would have to talk to Mr. McAvity to get more information than I've got at the present time. All I can say to the member is that in the judgment of the land titles branch working with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy people, a determination was made that this bulk searching is noncompliant. I can't cite the section of the act, and I don't know enough about what's in the material being obtained to add more than that at this stage. But I would undertake to work with the member to see whether or not this is the correct decision. If it is, then once we agree, that would be the end of it -- and if it's not the correct decision, we'd see whether or not an alternative decision might be made. But we can't do that very effectively in this forum.
D. Mitchell: A question to the hon. Attorney General. I'm holding in my hand a copy of the Ministry of Attorney General corrections branch "Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations." It's dated 1986. I'm not sure if it has been amended since then; that's the most current one I've had made available to me. In section 18(1), it says: "No person shall bring into or take from or assist in bringing into or taking from a correctional centre any contraband." "Contraband" is the term used.
Can the hon. Attorney General tell the committee if that section still reads the same way, according to the information available to him? I'd like to know if that's still currently the regulation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
D. Mitchell: Section 18(2) of the same rules and regulations talks about "a fine of not more than $2,000" or "imprisonment for not more than six months." I'd like to know from the Attorney General whether or not that information is still correct, and whether those fines for smuggling drugs into or out of correctional facilities still stand.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If someone was in contravention of the policy, then the practice would be to pursue the matter under the Criminal Code. I'm assuming that the reference is to the provisions in the Criminal Code for that particular violation, but I don't have the paper in front of me, so I don't know precisely.
D. Mitchell: The Attorney General might be able to get a copy of this. It's the correctional centre rules and regulations. The section that I'm referring to.... One of my points of curiosity is whether or not it relates to visitors to correctional facilities or to prisoners within correctional facilities or prisons, or whether or not it would also apply to those who work within the corrections system -- those correctional officers who might be involved in smuggling any contraband into or out of correctional facilities. Would those dollar fines and imprisonment fines also apply to correctional officers?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The policy of the branch is that if someone -- staff or visitor, it doesn't matter -- is bringing contraband drugs into the prison, it will be referred to the police for a police investigation under Criminal Code provisions. It's no longer in the hands of the branch while the police do their investigation and make their report to the Crown.
D. Mitchell: I'm curious about why the fines under the rules and regulations within the corrections branch are specifically referred to within this document, which is provided by the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. Could the hon. Attorney General tell us whether or not these fines, then -- the $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months -- would apply to employees of the corrections branch as well?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If, as a result of the procedures I outlined, a judge concludes that someone is guilty of an offence and that the offence they are guilty of could merit those particular fines or sentences.... I'm not sure where the member is going. The fine or the jail sentence cannot be imposed on anybody by the corrections branch; it can only be imposed by a court. It may be -- and I'm really speculating when I say this -- that some particular section of the Criminal Code being cited in this document, which has a reference to maximum sentences of that order; I don't know.
D. Mitchell: It's curious, because these are the correctional centre rules and regulations, published by the Ministry of Attorney General. They refer specifically to a person who contravenes subsection (1), which is dealing with smuggling of contraband in or out of a correctional facility. If they commit an offence they're liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment of not more than six months, or to both. I'm not sure whether that comes from the Criminal Code, or if there is some other precedent as to why this is specifically published within the internal rules and regulations of the corrections branch. But presumably, anyone who contravenes this rule would be liable to those offences. That would include employees within the corrections system, is that not correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the analogy here is the sign on the highway that says if you litter, then you're subject to a fine of $50; that would apply to anybody who litters on the highway. This would apply to anybody who is convicted under a summary conviction provision where those kinds of sentences are available. It's really hard.... Members would assist the debate if before discussing documents in their possession, they would just make an extra copy and send it across so that we could both look at the same piece of paper. The member must recognize that I couldn't bring here a moving van of all the materials that exist in this ministry, in order to have a copy of everything.
No doubt this is simply advice to staff and visitors about what the penalties are, if in fact they're convicted of bringing in contraband.
D. Mitchell: I will have a copy made and send it over to the hon. Attorney General, just so he can see it. It's a document produced by his ministry.
Maybe I could ask the hon. Attorney General about the definition of contraband in these rules and regulations in the corrections branch. The definition provided in the definition section in the interpretation part of these regulations is as follows: " 'Contraband' means a drug or weapon or any other object that may threaten the management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre." That's what contraband is: a drug, weapon or any other object that may threaten the management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre. I'd just like to ask the hon. Attorney General if this is the present operative definition of contraband.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think so, and I say that because I don't have a copy of the current policy in front of me. But it
[ Page 13666 ]
sounds pretty close. And drug would be widely defined, I would expect, to include alcohol as well. If it's the precise wording of the current regulation, I don't know.
D. Mitchell: The copy is on the way over to the hon. Attorney General now.
I guess one of the reasons I raised this is that I wonder whether these rules and regulations in the corrections system need to be tightened up a little. If there are illegal drugs that don't threaten management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre, would they then be okay? Would it then be acceptable to be in possession of them within a correctional system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The mere fact of the existence of this list is a problem. I don't think we're going to play games with the English language in respect to this. What we're talking about here is trying to keep prisons free of this list of items that the member read.
D. Mitchell: Fair enough. If the hon. Attorney General can determine whether such a list exists, defining contraband in more specific terms as it pertains to our corrections system, I for one would be very interested in receiving it, just to understand this a little further.
Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General a much more specific question that may be difficult to deal with; I'm not sure. It deals with an investigation that's ongoing right now in the corrections system, I understand. It may be one of the largest investigations that's been undertaken in the corrections system in many, many years. It's taking place in Maple Ridge apparently this afternoon, as we are sitting here in this committee, dealing with a problem at Alouette River, a correctional facility that I'm sure the Attorney General is familiar with. As I said, I gather it's one of the larger and more significant investigations that's been undertaken in recent years in the corrections system in British Columbia. I understand that there are employees of the corrections branch of the Attorney General's ministry holed up in a motel room in Maple Ridge. There are interviews taking place; there's an investigation ongoing. Apparently they're dealing with infractions by some staff at that facility, I'm told.
I'm wondering if the hon. Attorney General would care to tell us what he's able to tell us, this afternoon in this committee, about that investigation and how it pertains to this discussion we've been having about illegal drugs in the corrections system.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With thanks to the member, no, I wouldn't care to.
D. Mitchell: Well, we're dealing here with the scrutiny of the spending estimates of the hon. minister's ministry, and there's a major event taking place in the corrections system. It's a major investigation. In fact, I'm told that it might be the largest investigation of its kind in more than 30 years in the corrections system.
There are staff being interviewed. It's being described by some staff as a kangaroo court, where employees of the corrections system are being brought forward and interviewed about the smuggling of illegal drugs into a correctional facility by corrections staff. According to some testimony that's being made, this is apparently being presented by some employees as common practice -- to smuggle drugs into corrections facilities.
[4:30]
Last year at the time of the Danny Perrault case and the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case, we learned that it's fairly common for prisoners to be able to find illegal drugs within the corrections system. But now we're finding out, and we're hearing more and more. Initially they were unsubstantiated allegations, but now we believe -- and I'd like to get some confirmation from the Attorney General about this this afternoon -- that there is currently an internal investigation going on within the Ministry of Attorney General into the Alouette River correctional facility, where at least one employee, perhaps more, has been accused of and has been caught smuggling illegal drugs -- contraband under the rules and regulations of the Corrections system -- into the Alouette River facility. Apparently at least one employee who has been caught and interviewed has suggested that this is fairly common practice. Names are being named; higher-ups are apparently being named within the corrections system.
This is a very serious matter, and the reason I raise it is that there's a question of public responsiveness and accountability. There's concern that employees who are guilty of such serious allegations should not receive just a minor slap on the wrist, but should be reprimanded with the full force of the law and the full force of the rules and regulations established by the corrections system, under the correctional centre rules and regulations that I referred to earlier. Could the minister at least confirm that such an investigation is taking place, and whether or not his ministry is personally being apprised of this investigation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to thank the member for sending over a copy of the document he was referring to -- and it's clear under the contraband section. The reference is to the sanctions that could be imposed if an offence, as described in these rules, was committed and there was a conviction. That doesn't mean that the system itself imposes the sentence; it would be the courts that do that.
I'm not going to talk about the issues raised by the member, other than to say that if, in the course of any activity, it comes to anyone's attention that there is a potential criminal offence, then the matter has to be immediately forwarded to the police. I say that because in the member's comments were references, as I heard it, to matters that could be criminal offences. If people, one way or another, have information to that effect, then their responsibility is to forward that to the police.
D. Mitchell: I don't understand exactly why the hon. Attorney General is stonewalling on this matter. This is a fairly specific instance. There is an investigation ongoing, as we speak today, apparently at the Best Western Hotel in Maple Ridge, where corrections staff are being interviewed about a very serious matter. Apparently a corrections officer who was on her way into the Alouette River facility was searched and found to be bringing in drugs. These are serious allegations. Apparently further allegations are suggesting that this is fairly common practice, and names are being named. Some have referred to the investigation as a kangaroo court, where just about anyone involved is being brought forward, investigated and interviewed in this process.
[ Page 13667 ]
We're told that this is the most extensive internal investigation within the corrections system in many, many years -- perhaps as many as 30 years. Apparently at least one employee has already been fired or suspended. Would the hon. Attorney General at least agree today, if he's not willing to discuss this matter for whatever reason.... It puzzles me when he says that one of his principles is responsiveness to the public. We talked about the Danny Perrault case and the Prowse inquiry and the need for further public accountability, and it puzzles me that he's not willing to talk about this very, very grave situation where the confidence in the corrections system is once again at stake. Would he at least agree to allow a member of this House, this member of this House, to make a formal request to the independent office of inspections and standards in his ministry to look into the crisis at Alouette River, and to report back to the House before we conclude these estimates?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If, as I said earlier, there are allegations of criminal activity, then it's clear what has to happen with that, and that's not something I'm going to talk about in the House. If there are personnel matters that require dealing with, then they will be dealt with in the normal appropriate ways under the Public Service Act and whatever other provisions apply to people who work in government. And I think at this stage, that's all I'm going to say. The office of Mr. Anderson would not have any role to play at this stage. It's conceivable that at some point that may occur. I don't know; I can't predict what might or might not happen.
D. Mitchell: Could the hon. Attorney General then tell us whose responsibility it is to deal with a very serious situation where employees within the corrections system are perhaps being involved in illegal activities? If it's not the independent office of inspection and standards -- and there are standards that are being violated here -- is it going to be left up to the human resources branch within the individual correctional facility to deal with it? If it's a criminal act, the hon. Attorney General indicates that it's the policing authorities who have the responsibility to deal with it. But there are other issues here dealing with internal matters within the corrections system. In the case of Alouette River we have a process going on that's secretive. The hon. Attorney General doesn't want to talk about it in this House. He won't refer to it, and yet there are individual employees under his ministry who are being interviewed, who are being interrogated, and who are referring to this whole procedure as a kangaroo court. Who's in charge of the investigation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If it's a personnel matter, senior management are in charge. If it's an alleged criminal matter, the police are charged with investigating. If the police come up with any recommendations for charges, then they would be referred to the federal prosecutors -- if, as the member says, it's a matter of drug laws.
D. Mitchell: We talked earlier about the corrections branch rules and regulations and the penalties that could be prescribed for the smuggling of contraband in or out of correctional facilities. Could the hon. Attorney General tell us, in a situation where employees within the corrections branch were accused of and found guilty of smuggling drugs into a correctional facility, what kind of penalty he would want to see enforced. How seriously would he take this? What kinds of reprimands would he believe would be appropriate for this very serious crime?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not going to be in a position of making any comment about what the courts should or shouldn't do, or the extent of the sanction. They are guided by the code in respect of the range of penalties, and they are guided by precedent in respect of penalties. It's not for me to say what the courts should or shouldn't do. As far as personnel matters go, it is for the managers in the system to deal with and, in the final analysis, for the commissioner of corrections.
D. Mitchell: Just a final question on this serious matter. If it is, as alleged, that this is a common practice within the corrections system -- not simply that it's a common practice to be able to find drugs within prisons or correctional facilities, as the hon. Attorney General referred to earlier.... That's not an easy problem to deal with. In fact, it might be impossible to deal with it, because we're dealing with the problems of human ingenuity, I suppose.
If the problem isn't just with inmates or visitors to correctional facilities but is with prison guards and correctional staff who may be involved -- maybe it's just a few who might be involved in this very serious practice -- what actions can the Attorney General tell us that he's prepared to take to restore confidence to the great majority of correctional officers who would never condone and would never be involved in this practice? If, as is being alleged, this is fairly common, then what kind of actions to deal with this would be appropriate in terms of the administration of the correctional system in British Columbia? It's not a problem that seems to be going away; it seems to be getting worse. What could the Attorney General commit to this committee today that he's prepared to do to deal with this serious problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's time for me to say to the member that if he has evidence of this being a widespread problem, he should be reporting that to the authorities. By saying that but not following through, he is casting an aspersion on all corrections branch employees, particularly those who work in institutions in this province. I have no evidence, my deputy has no evidence and the acting assistant deputy minister responsible for the corrections branch has no evidence that would in any way support the wild allegations made by the member.
If the member or his sources have any evidence or hints of evidence regarding criminal activity on the part of employees of the ministry, then they should get down to the police station and report it. They should not be in this House or anywhere else making wild, general allegations that cast aspersions on public servants who do one of the more difficult jobs on behalf of British Columbians, which is to work in correctional institutions with a group of people who are not the easiest to work with in our society. I just urge the member to be more careful, because I think he is -- and I'm saying this in a very mild way -- not serving the interests of the system or of the people who work in it very well at all by embarking on this line of commentary.
D. Mitchell: I seek to cast no aspersions on all corrections staff in the province. Because I know a number of corrections employees personally, I know very well that their job is among the most difficult in the public service in British
[ Page 13668 ]
Columbia. But there are some allegations that have been made. I asked the hon. Attorney General a question earlier as to whether or not it would be appropriate to refer these matters to the independent office of inspections and standards. He indicated that no, he didn't think that would be appropriate. I'm drawing some of these matters to his attention today; he doesn't want to know about them. I'd be pleased to share what I do know with him outside of this House; he doesn't want to know about that, either. In the meantime, his ministry is undertaking a serious investigation of these matters right now.
I will tell him that I'm prepared to bring forward the allegations that have been brought to my attention to whatever authorities he thinks are appropriate. But if a police investigation is ongoing right now, the hon. Attorney General hasn't confirmed that. I understand that it's an internal ministerial corrections branch investigation that's ongoing. Perhaps that's who I could be bringing the information that's been brought to my attention, but the hon. Attorney General won't discuss it and won't provide details of that investigation at all. It's difficult for me to know where to bring the information that's been brought to my attention to, but I'm more than prepared to do that. Would he be prepared to comment any further on this before I conclude the matter?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has been involved in public life in this province in one way or another long enough to know that if he has any information that relates to internal matters in the corrections branch that are not of a criminal nature but are of another nature, he can forward that information to me or to my deputy. If that's not satisfactory for some reason, he can refer it to the acting assistant deputy minister in charge of the corrections branch. All three of us are close at hand to the member and would welcome any information he may want to convey to us, either orally in the hallway or by way of a memo. That relates to any matters the member may have information about which we don't already have -- or he doesn't know if we have it and he wants to make sure we do. If, on the other hand, what he's talking about are potential criminal acts, then I suggest he get down to the police station.
[4:45]
D. Mitchell: Fair enough. I accept what the hon. Attorney General is saying, although I'm dismayed that he's not prepared in this House -- in this public forum, not out in the hallway, not in the privacy of his office -- to at least confirm an investigation of the magnitude of what's going on in Alouette River today.
Let me ask a final question to the Attorney General about the corrections system itself, and this is a follow-up on last year. During this estimates review last year, I discussed the hon. Attorney General's budget and whether or not he was spending enough on corrections in the province. I offered him encouragement in that regard to do better at Treasury Board to deal with that. He told us he was doing the best he could; yet he came back to the House this year with a request for a special warrant to spend more.
So the question, obviously, is: where might things get out of control this year? Will we be back here next year seeking another special warrant because he hasn't budgeted enough again for the corrections system? Are there unexpected expenditures looming on the corrections side that he has identified which are potential problems? If so, should we know about them now so that if we go through this process next year -- if we should be here next year at this time -- we might be able to deal with them in a constructive manner?
How does the ministry mitigate against the need for unexpected special warrants, unexpected expenditures? I know we can't anticipate everything, but certainly the budgetary and planning processes within the ministry must be able to anticipate in a manner so that we don't have to go over -- I think it was -- by 5 percent this year, in terms of the total spending in this area. That's a fairly significant overexpenditure. I think the public has an appetite to pay for its safety and security, so I don't think the minister needs to be shy about asking this committee today for the approval of a budget that will provide for public safety and security. How does he feel about this year's budget? Are we going to be here again next year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's for good reason that these are referred to as the estimate debates, and the book which contains the information under discussion is entitled Estimates, because these are our estimated expenditure needs for the fiscal year that we've just started.
It's my responsibility as minister to ensure as best as I possibly can that we live within these budget estimates this fiscal year. I can't predict what may happen that would force us to come back to the House for additional spending. If it was clear to me that additional spending was required, I would have had to insist at the budget-making stage that the money be allocated at that time. We believe we can live, with difficulty, within these estimates, all going well. Things in this ministry don't always go well, so who knows by the end of the year? I'm not predicting what may or may not happen, but it's certainly our intention to try and live within the budget as it's presented.
D. Mitchell: It reminds me of what the minister said last year when I asked him the same question. I wish him good luck as he tries to meet this objective. When he established the principles that guide his ministry, he stated three principles, and I referred to them earlier. Maybe there should be a fourth. Maybe the fourth principle should be that he should try to live within his budget -- I'm not sure. Talk about accountability. The minister doesn't want to write his own epitaph.
I'd like to ask one final question of the minister on a separate topic. It relates to an investigation by policing authorities that took place within this parliamentary precinct recently. It took place on the subject of the budget leak on budget day, when the hon. Minister of Finance had details of her budget leaked to the news media the evening before her budget was tabled. Subsequent to that, the government seemed to be concerned about leaks and wanted to launch an investigation as to where the leaks came from, and the RCMP was involved in an inquiry. It's interesting that opposition members working in this parliamentary precinct were contacted through the Speaker's office, most appropriately; but they were contacted through the Speaker's office by the RCMP, seeking to have the staff of opposition members' offices interviewed as part of this investigation into the budget leak. I'd like to know if the Attorney General's ministry was asked for an opinion, first of all, on the process leading into that investigation, as to who should be interviewed and whether or not government MLAs were also involved. Were the staff of government MLAs also interrogated by the RCMP?
[ Page 13669 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decision about the conduct of the investigation -- which, incidentally, is ongoing -- is one that is entirely the call of the RCMP. I don't -- nor does anyone else in government -- direct how they conduct their investigation or who they interview.
D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this: was the Attorney General's ministry asked for an opinion as to whether or not it was appropriate, given the privileges of members of this legislature, to have the RCMP come into this parliamentary precinct and interview MLAs and MLAs' staff with respect to the budgetary leak? I'm wondering what kinds of resources the RCMP had in this investigation, and whether or not the Attorney General's ministry provided any opinion to them in this regard.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only advice given to the RCMP by the Attorney General's ministry was that whenever they were operating in the precincts, they needed to advise the Speaker's office of that fact. That advice, I understand, has been followed.
L. Reid: Certainly to move topics, with the minister's indulgence.... I had the opportunity to attend the B.C. schizophrenia conference this past Saturday in Richmond. A number of questions came from the floor regarding the status of the adult guardianship legislation. I understand, again from comments from these conference participants, that the time lag in terms of awaiting proclamation has been 21 months. Would the minister just spend a couple of moments discussing implementation and, indeed, what the time line may be.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess the first thing I want to say is that I think the community, which played such an important role in developing the legislation, has continued to play a very effective and supportive role in helping us to develop an implementation plan.
A couple of things have helped to slow the process down slower than I would like and, I'm sure, slower than the community would like. One is the fact that there was a change in public trustee in the middle of this process, and there was a gap between the departure and the appointment of a replacement. In addition to that, the kind of funding that would be required to speed up the implementation has just not been available. It's one of the unfortunate realities of governments not being given enough money by taxpayers to do all the things that need to be done. We've had to make some tough choices. Fortunately, the toughest choice of all, one which would involve not proceeding, has not been made; we are proceeding, and I'm determined that we proceed. Of all the things I have been involved with in this ministry in three and a half years, that's one of the initiatives I feel best about and want to see succeed.
L. Reid: Certainly I would not support the contention that this government has not received sufficient tax dollars. I would want to explore in more detail whether or not your priorities matched the priorities of the B.C. schizophrenia association. They certainly believe that the legislation can be implemented.
Again, my question comes to a time line. I appreciate the comments the minister has made, but could he provide some guidance as to when they could expect royal assent on that legislation, and what work remains to be done?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a specific date, but there is now being established a group which will provide advice. It's composed of people from the public trustee's office, the government and the community particularly. What they will be doing is working out how we can implement this whole adult guardianship initiative -- a rather major, awesome task. They will be giving us advice about how we phase in the development of this initiative. I'm speculating when I say this, but my guess is that we won't be proclaiming the whole thing all at once. I think there will be specific proclamations at specific times.
I want to say that in the last fiscal year we allocated $3 million. I may have inadvertently misled members when I talked about the fiscal pressures, because this year, in this budget, we're actually adding money to this program. What I meant to say, and I may not have left the correct impression, was that even though we're putting $3.8 million into this initiative in this fiscal year, that isn't as much as could be spent to do it as effectively as we'd like.
There will be a project director hired to oversee this process, which will be guided by the advisory body that I referred to a moment ago.
L. Reid: Just in terms of my reporting accurately back to the B.C. schizophrenia association, was it this government's intention to have a time line for implementation that would exceed two years?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know that we knew how long the implementation would take, because the implementation process requires a major involvement with the community. Going from memory now, I don't think I ever had in my mind a particular schedule for proclamation. My concern is that it's not proceeding as fast as I would like, and we're trying to do it as quickly as we can within the resources and advice we get. But I don't think there was a particular time line. I'd have to go back and check the Hansard from the debate on all four bills to see if there was any reference, but off the top of my head there wasn't.
L. Reid: I have two remaining questions on this topic. Is it likely that it will be proclaimed during the remaining eight months of 1995? And could the minister comment on what work still remains to be done?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer the first question. We're still in the process of establishing a project director and getting the advisory committee up and running. I don't know how long their work will take. I don't know what the financial implications will be of proclamations in various parts of the legislation. So I just can't answer the question.
There was a second question....
L. Reid: Work that remains to be done.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think there's a lot of work that remains to be done. I'm not involved in a day-to-day way at all with the tasks, but I know, from my memory of the issues that the legislation deals with, that there are just dozens and dozens of tasks and lots and lots of work to do. So this is going to be a project that will take a long time into the future until it's fully operational and fully part of the fabric of this
[ Page 13670 ]
province, because it is a significant change in the way we relate to adult guardianship and.... I'm just looking for the words, but I've lost them. Your mind doesn't work as well when you do this hour after hour, so I've lost some of the words.
Nonetheless, the entire project is a pretty massive undertaking and is not going to be in place in a full way, with everybody in society understanding and using it, for some years to come.
L. Reid: Hon. minister, if you can direct me to someone within your ministry who could update me on a regular basis or if you could advise your staff to keep us on the Liberal benches apprised in terms of the progress, I would be most appreciative.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member could talk directly to the public trustee, Dot Ewen, or alternatively, to a senior member of our ministry staff, whose name is Ann Ratel.
[5:00]
J. Dalton: I want to deal with the issue of the civil court process, specifically the backlog in the courts and ways that we might address those backlogs. To assist the Attorney General, I have met with officials of the Trial Lawyers' Association. I might even say that last night at our reception with the Law Society and the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association they were also helpful in an informal sense. I'm also happy to report they didn't exclude me from the reception, even though some of my comments yesterday weren't necessarily uncomplimentary, but they were perhaps a bit critical of some of my former colleagues in that profession.
I think we touched briefly in this committee -- certainly last year we talked about it -- on whether in order to take care of the civil court backlog we might consider more judges, more courts or more this or that. Of course, all of those involve more money. One suggestion that's been passed on to me, on which I have done a bit of follow-up, was that we need earlier and more active judicial intervention in the civil court process. The president of the Trial Lawyers' Association pointed out to me that there is an interesting project taking place in Seattle, which involves some of this early and more active intervention by the courts themselves -- that is, by the judges. As we have commented in other areas, we can always learn from our neighbouring jurisdictions -- not that we always want to follow them. Washington State, of course, has produced some other interesting examples in the world of justice that we wouldn't want to follow.
In order to follow this up, I was advised to contact Mr. Justice John Bouck of the B.C. Supreme Court, who was conducting a pilot project with regard to some aspects of the buildup in the civil courts. I spoke with Mr. Justice Bouck this morning on this topic. He advised me that he is going to send me a 33-page paper, so I'll be expecting to see that shortly. Perhaps if the Attorney General isn't in possession of this particular document, he might take note and get a copy. Mr. Justice Bouck tells me there will be a meeting of the judges involved on May 5 to follow up on this.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
What they have in mind is a three-year pilot project starting January 1, 1996, the very thing the president of the Trial Lawyers' Association pointed out to me should be further considered -- that is, the implementation of what Mr. Justice Bouck described as an individual calendar in order to manage the civil courts. Right now the judges use a master calendar whereby the rules of court follow their normal process. A trial judge will be appointed when the matter is set for trial. In the meantime, a lot of time -- interlocutory proceedings -- and money is spent in getting to the trial stage.
I am sure the Attorney General is well aware that once a matter is set down for trial, it will probably be years from the date they apply for the trial date, and there's no guarantee that when the lawyer and the clients get to court they'll be able to get before a judge, because they double-, triple- and maybe quadruple-book in the system. If they face that problem, then they're going to have to reapply for another court date, which may be six or eight months further down the line. So there's a lot of delay. When I talked to Justice Bouck this morning, he was quite encouraged by what's happening in Seattle. He's going to provide me with more detail on this proposal.
I want to ask the Attorney General if the ministry is supportive of these concepts. For example, will there be any change in budgetary implications because of what Justice Bouck and some of the other judges of the Supreme Court of B.C. have in mind?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I heard a question, other than a very important contribution from the member on a subject that is crucial to the functioning of the justice system. I'm looking forward to seeing how the pilot project proceeds. I understand that Ontario has moved ahead on this issue. I think early indications are that this is a direction that the system needs to move in, but we will await the work of the pilot project.
J. Dalton: I was also advised by Justice Bouck.... In fact, I asked him if we would need more judges in order to properly implement such a proposal. He happily said that we'd probably need fewer judges, because of course if we get more efficient.... However, he did say that there's a likelihood that there would be more support staff needed. Perhaps I could repeat my earlier question, in a sense. Does the Attorney General see that there may be some more budgetary impact as a result of this -- even though in the long run I can see that efficiency in the court process is obviously going to save money for all involved?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's a little early to say with any certainty what the financial implications would be, but clearly there would be additional support staff required for this kind of initiative. But we would deal with the backlog; once you start dealing with the backlog in the courts in one area, then you free up some of the pressures in other areas. If we can get all of the backlog questions down, then we reduce the pressure on remand, which saves money in corrections. There are all kinds of questions to be asked and answered in respect of that. I think the crucial issue for us here is to find ways of dealing with the backlog, and of processing cases more effectively and more quickly, and I am less concerned about what the financial implications might be in terms of support staff. I don't think that's going to be an impediment at first glance here. We obviously don't have the results of the project yet.
J. Dalton: While we're on the general topic of a civil process -- and there have been comments made by the
[ Page 13671 ]
Attorney General both in these current estimates and in previous estimates about alternatives to actually going to trial -- I would point out that not all clients or lawyers are in a great rush to get before a judge, because it is a time-consuming and costly endeavour. The court process has to be maintained and we have to improve it, as we've just touched upon. But I think we also have to consider alternatives in more detail, such as alternative dispute resolution. I want to ask the Attorney General if, with regard to the commercial arbitration centre, he can advise the committee what funding is provided to the centre and if we can expect that funding to be maintained.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The funding for the international arbitration centre, or whatever its proper title is, comes out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, in fact; I can't speak to what their commitments are this year.
J. Dalton: Right. I might advise the Attorney General, then, that he may very well be buttonholed by somebody at the reception he's attending tonight about that issue. I wasn't aware that the funding actually came through a separate ministry. Thank you for that advice.
Let me move into another topic. I indicated to the committee earlier that I wanted to ask something about the federal proposal for universal gun registration, and we won't get into the issues here as to the merits of the registration system itself. I think that's obviously for another forum. However, let me just read into the record a couple of statements that have been made by the Premier of this province. He wrote on March 15 to somebody who had obviously contacted his office expressing concern about the federal proposal. To quote from the Premier's letter, "The British Columbia government will have the responsibility of administering and enforcing the federal firearms legislation" -- which, of course, is true, because it will have to be implemented and dealt with on a province-by-province basis as far as the administration goes.
I also have in my hand a letter from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. And the Attorney General, of course, will be able to take us back to January of this year, when all the justice ministers and attorneys general across Canada met in Victoria, and gun control, of course, was on the agenda. As the Attorney General knows, most of his counterparts -- certainly in western Canada -- are opposed to the federal registration provisions. That's very clear from the letter that the Attorney General of Saskatchewan wrote on March 7. Let's see what he says. He says: "Bill C-68 is an ill-conceived piece of legislation which is not supported by Saskatchewan, and which will only serve to penalize the law-abiding responsible gun owners of this country."
If I recall, the letter I was quoting from yesterday, when the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister just before that conference in January occurred, the Premier expressed a similar concern about imposing perhaps unnecessary regulations on lawful gun owners. But I think that's a side issue that we can't debate here. Perhaps we can all go back and deal with the committee hearings that are being conducted right now on Bill C-68.
Given that, certainly the other western attorneys general are opposed to this registration system. Given that the Premier of this province is on record as saying that we will have the responsibility of administering and enforcing the legislation, can the Attorney General advise us as to whether there was any discussion in January's meeting about the costs that may be imposed on the province if the bill goes through as it's currently proposed? Can we address that issue in any way?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There were discussions in general ways at the meeting about the costs that will be incurred and where the funding will come from for those costs. We made it very clear that the system should not be designed in a way that makes it costly or onerous on individuals. We believe that the Canadian chiefs of police and more recently the federation of Canadian police officers -- and I've forgotten their precise name, but the national organization of all police officers -- have indicated support for enhanced legislation, and we have indicated that support.
But in having that new regime in place, we want to make sure that it doesn't penalize unfairly legitimate gun owners, collectors, hunters and target shooters who should have every right to continue their activity without the government unnecessarily in their face.
The federal ministers said that the cost of starting a program would be some $85 million, which would be borne by the federal government. He proposed a scheme that was not very well developed at that stage, which would outline what registration would cost for the approximately three million firearm owners in the country. So there would be a nominal registration fee -- cheaper than a dog licence, I think -- for those gun owners, and there would be another fee for each registered firearm. Again, those proposals are not yet finalized. The amounts are, in comparison to other registration schemes, in line -- relatively nominal.
In terms of provincial obligations, which I think was the more direct question the member asked, we haven't yet even concluded our negotiations on the old scheme. We've been trying for years, as have a number of other provinces, to conclude an agreement with Ottawa in respect of how our responsibility to enforce the program meshes with Ottawa's legislative jurisdiction and where the money comes from and how all of that works. We haven't concluded those negotiations yet, and I suspect there's a lot of discussion yet to happen before we conclude this next round.
[5:15]
My own position is that this a federal initiative; there should be a non-onerous responsibility on the gun owners, and there should be a federal response, financially, to assist in making the program work. We should not be out of pocket provincially, in respect of this program.
J. Dalton: I certainly agree with that last comment. There's no question that we shouldn't be out of pocket, whether we be gun owners or not. I'm disappointed to hear that we're still trying to argue the toss with Ottawa over Bill C-17, I guess it was -- or whatever the previous gun control bill was.
Now we're wandering into new and unproven territory. I suppose we might even, in a way, want to get into a debate on the merits of the gun control bill itself and other aspects, but we can't change that bill here, and any discussion we might have.... But I think that, perhaps on both sides, we might want to get off a letter to Alan Rock saying: "Until you can satisfy British Columbia that (1) the previous implementation has been satisfied, and (2) the costs to the taxpayers of British Columbia will not be onerous...." Keeping in mind that we have policing considerations.... People will have to go down
[ Page 13672 ]
to their local police station, I presume, in order to register. Somebody will have to be in that office to staff that. Those are all costs that will be imposed on the taxpayers of this province. We should also be ever mindful that there's only one taxpayer anyway, and that taxpayer is under seige enough without trying to implement something else.
I might say as an aside that I myself am not a great fan of what Alan Rock is proposing -- from the universal process, because, quite frankly, I don't think it truly addresses the public safety issues that it is allegedly going to improve. But we may not know that until, and if, it's actually implemented. But if British Columbia is going to be facing a very onerous task of having to administer a system that, quite frankly, I can see could be very costly both to gun owners and to all of us as taxpayers, then I think we'd better put a halt to it, or at least slow it up. That's something that perhaps, as you say, we can't specifically resolve at this time here.
I wanted to ask a couple of things of the Attorney General coming from the subvote on agencies, boards and commissions. Firstly, dealing with the Law Reform Commission, can the Attorney General advise us what part of the budget will be designated for the Law Reform Commission? I've heard some concern expressed out there in the legal world that that commission may be downsized -- for the want of better term. It does excellent work, as I'm sure the Attorney General is well aware. I would hate to see the Law Reform Commission in any way undermined by a lack of proper funding.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're continuing to fund the Law Reform Commission. The amount in this fiscal year will be $375,000, which is the same as last year. I might say that I expect to hear about this in about an hour and a half, and again....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, no, I don't need the tipoff. I have been properly lobbied in the sense that I have actually made a commitment to people involved in the legal community that I will get on with the appointments of.... I think that's probably the next question. Given that the funding is in place, we haven't got a fully operating commission, and that's my problem. I think it's one of about 5,000 things waiting on my desk when we get through the estimates. I just haven't had an opportunity to get at that question, but I intend to.
J. Dalton: Well, that was a happy response, because some concern had been expressed to me that perhaps the commission, because there were the vacancies the Attorney General just referred to, and the funding.... At least the funding is maintained at last year's level. I suppose we might think there should be a cost-of-living thrown in there, but given that we, as MLAs, haven't seen any increase in our funding, why should anyone else perhaps get any?
The other question I wanted to raise -- well, maybe two others coming from that subvote -- is dealing with Elections B.C. Last year we passed an amendment whereby there would not be an enumeration of voters. But I was out in Abbotsford on Saturday, doing some door-knocking for one of the candidates of some unknown party, and I was not surprised to observe as I went door to door.... For example, at one address I saw four names listed, but there was actually only one voter out of four there. Two had moved and sold to the other two, and one of the other two has since died.
The problem is that the voters list is for 1991. Even though we agreed last year when we dealt with the amendment that we were going to save $8 million, I believe, the fact is we're going to have a rather chaotic voters list both in Abbotsford next Wednesday and in the general election, which we would encourage the Attorney General and his colleagues to call as quickly as possible, so we can test the very thing that I think is going to happen. We're going to have a lot of people coming in on election day with no identification, and I think it's going to be an unhappy experience. Maybe we should revisit the way that we keep our voters list up to date. If I recall from last year's discussion, I believe we agreed that voters should have their own responsibility to get on the voters list; but obviously it doesn't happen. Perhaps the Attorney General could give us some assistance on whether these issues can be resolved in some way.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is yet another of those issues that require a legislative fix. It's fair to say that I think members will be dealing with it later this session, because it's in the public domain that we intend to deal with elections legislation in this session. I hope that it does happen, that we do get a bill and that members have an opportunity then to discuss the provisions or the way in which we want to try and deal with the voter registration issue. The full, provincewide enumeration every four years is not the most effective way at all. Provinces that have done that, and the feds as well, are moving away from that system to other ways of doing it. I'm sure that we'll have an opportunity later this session to explore the question in some detail.
L. Fox: I wanted to join in. I just happened to be down at my monitor and heard the two words "gun control." They immediately perked up my ears, and I quickly thought I'd come in and ask for some background information from the Attorney General on that issue. Has the Attorney General done any kind of informational work in terms of how this would affect -- when federal Bill C-68, I believe, indeed comes forward -- policing in smaller and rural communities, in terms of the time they would have to spend on this issue versus other crime issues within those communities? Has the Attorney General done any kind of exploration -- an examination of what the impact of this legislation would be on our policing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Quite frankly, we don't know enough yet from the federal government about how they are going to do this to know how we are going to be charged with implementing it. We are still receiving material from them about ideas they are developing in respect of how the system is going to work. It would be a little bit premature to go out and try and sort out how, let's say, in Vanderhoof or Port McNeill the local RCMP office would be set up to deal with the registration scheme.
We just don't know yet those kinds of issues. Our chief firearms officer will be -- as we have for years -- putting our position forward in the discussions with Ottawa about how the scheme is implemented. I don't want to have, as a result of this, any fewer officers in the communities, on the street, dealing with other issues as a result. So we have to find a way of ensuring that we don't lose policing resources as a result of this. I am really determined about that. It is just premature, at this stage, to get into this. We don't know yet how they are going to set it up.
[ Page 13673 ]
L. Fox: I don't have to inform the Attorney General -- through you, hon. Chair -- of the position of the B.C. Reform caucus. I think it is well recorded, and the party is well-recorded, that we see this as needless bureaucratic interference in lawful citizens' lifestyle. But it would seem to me that we would be far better off as a province to take a proactive approach in terms of under what conditions we will accept it. Rather than sitting and waiting and then having to react to the reality, it would seem to me that we should be laying them down. I know the Attorney General supports the measure, and I know that his caucus has had some difficulty in that resolve. But it also seems to me that the responsible thing to do, as a provincial government, is lay down the conditions of this legislation which we would accept, rather than sitting and waiting.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't meant to imply that we're sitting and waiting. The member's question, which I thought I was responding to, was: have we looked at how it will impact out there in small rural communities? In fact, through my comments at federal-provincial meetings, by way of correspondence and by way of discussions between the ministry staff and federal Justice ministry staff, we have said what we want to have happen and what we don't want to have happen. Those discussions have been ongoing. I know our chief firearms officer has been to Ottawa on several occasions now and has been involved in these discussions, setting out our perspective on the issue. I don't know what more we can do. I haven't made a big public issue out of it. We're doing the work behind the scenes, where it can often be more effective, in any event.
L. Fox: I suppose I can understand why the Attorney General hasn't made a big public issue of it, because many British Columbians are totally opposed to the government supporting it at all. So I would suggest that....
Interjection.
L. Fox: The Attorney General hollers "20 percent" across the floor. Well, they must all be in the northern and rural parts, because, I'll tell you, I haven't come across too many folks who support this federal legislation in the circles that I travel in. Perhaps that just goes to show that we do travel in different circles.
What information does the Attorney General have -- which perhaps I and other British Columbians may not have -- that verifies that the registration of hunting rifles and ordinary firearms is indeed going to lower the crime rate in British Columbia or, for that matter, in Canada? What kind of information does the Attorney General have at his fingertips that would substantially prove that point? I haven't been able to find any. In fact, all of the information that I read, even from the American states that started the initiative and are now backing off from it, is that it's a needless exercise; it does nothing but encumber law-abiding citizens and does not effect any real reduction in the crime rate.
[5:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think one of the central issues here.... I don't want to get into a big debate about it. It's not my legislation; it's the feds'; but I don't mind having this discussion for just a few minutes.
One of the comments that I hear frequently from people is that we should be going after criminals and not after lawful gun owners, and that kind of dichotomy is established. The fact is that all too many shootings -- whether they're murders or suicides or attempted murders -- are committed by people that one wouldn't describe as criminals. There are no criminal records and there's no pattern of criminal behaviour; they are events that emerge out of domestic disputes. That's the central issue here.
It comes a little bit from the culture, which I see on my street in Campbell River. I'm just about the only resident on the street without a gun in the house. One of our neighbours sleeps with a shotgun under her pillow, and the moment she thinks somebody is coming in the door, she'll blast away.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: But it's a pretty dangerous thing. One of these days her little grandchild might come tripping through the bedroom, and that has been known to happen. So it's those kinds of situations. We just have to change the culture around this issue.
The police perspective is where I'm focused. For the police to know, in responding to a domestic dispute, that in this particular house there are the following weapons, which are listed on the computer.... As they drive off to the site, they can pull up on their computer that there are the following kinds of weapons in that residence -- or not. They won't know for sure, but if there are weapons in the house, they will know that it's likely that they're there. They're going to be far more enabled to deal with the situation than they would be without that knowledge.
One doesn't do everything simply because the police say it should be done -- we don't live in that kind of society -- but I have to tell members that I am very much influenced on this issue not only by police chiefs but by police officers, who at their national convention three or four weeks ago, whenever it was, voted to support the legislation. They wanted some changes. They wanted to decriminalize the first offence, and I agree with that. They wanted some other changes. There was a list, I think, of a dozen or 15 changes they wanted which I think would make eminent sense. They want this kind of registration scheme in order to protect themselves. I think we owe that to police officers, who put themselves in dangerous situations all too often. If they can have an added measure of protection, then fine.
I put myself back to thinking about whether, if we had automobiles for the first time now and somebody came up with the notion of registering automobiles, we'd have the same arguments. People would say: "You can't register automobiles. It's an invasion of privacy." You'd get all the same kind of arguments. We take it for granted now. We register both the driver and the vehicle, and no one is bothered by that at all. The registration of an automobile helps the police in investigations in numerous ways. Probably the first thing they do is to check the plate of a vehicle to sort things out.
They've got the same opportunity with weapons that may have been stolen or misplaced and then used in a crime. It will aid them in their investigations. I don't know why members would want to take positions that would fly in the face of assisting the police in these matters. That's where we're at on it.
[ Page 13674 ]
To go back to the original question, we're really talking, I think, about domestic disputes being a major factor in this issue. Interestingly -- I can't quote these numbers directly -- there are more murders per capita in rural Canada than there are in urban Canada. Everybody thinks of the crimes leading to murders as being a big-city thing. The murders that are usually committed with guns are in fact a rural thing, and they're usually in a domestic or an accidental situation.
L. Fox: I don't want to carry the debate on too long, although I think it would be an interesting one. But I just want to make a couple of observations on the Attorney General's statements. Firstly, my information suggests that of those who are killed by guns, only 4 percent are killed by guns that could be registerable anyway. The balance are killed by weapons that are already considered illegal. That's one point.
The second point I want to make is that if the police are relying on knowing whether a home has a rifle or gun in it to have some comfort, I submit that we'll see a higher incidence of officers killed. History shows that the guns that kill RCMP if they put their guard down are ones that have the serial numbers filed off them, and so on. They're not the hunting rifles or the typical rifle you could register. It's an illegal weapon 90 percent of the time, and it wouldn't be on the registry anyway. I don't buy the argument that it's going to give the police more comfort. I think it will do just the opposite, because the unknowns will still be there in terms of what's in that particular home.
I want to make those two observations, and I know there is at least one other member who has a question on this particular issue.
L. Hanson: For the Attorney General's information, I did read his letter and looked at the date on it.
But setting that aside, I think the member for Prince George-Omineca touched on.... I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of the ongoing controversy about the cost of policing in municipalities under 5,000, over 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000, and that continues to go on. I know you're still in the negotiating process, and I ask you this only to raise the issue with you. What responsibility are these municipalities going to have in the registration process, and what effect is it going to have on them? There is constant pressure for more officers who are municipal officers as opposed to provincial officers. If that hasn't been a subject of discussion that the minister, through the gun control officer, has carried forward to the federal government, it is an issue that communities are very concerned about, because it will add another pressure to a situation that is already of concern.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I share the anticipated concern. The way the system works is that the feds make money available to the province for costs that might be incurred at the local level. We then reimburse the local level. But it may be that the registration scheme will avoid a lot of the local bureaucratic needs. There have been some discussions about mail-in systems -- just going to the post office for a form and doing it directly that way and avoiding the need to go down to the local police station. A lot of those questions are still to be determined.
My commitment is to take the position with Ottawa, as we have, that they need to provide sufficient resources to meet any additional costs that might be met by the local municipal police board or municipality. But we're still at the early stages in all of this. We don't even know what shape the legislation is going to be in until the parliamentary committee finishes its work and the federal cabinet considers what to do with those recommendations. So we're still in the early days.
My commitment is to do what I can to make sure that municipalities are not out of pocket.
L. Hanson: I guess I just have one further comment as it relates to the registration of automobiles and the registration of guns. I find it difficult to make that comparison, because automobiles are a very visible entity, a very visible piece of equipment, whereas guns are quite different. I think the argument that we register automobiles and we therefore should register guns carries little weight with most of the public, because they are really two completely different issues and two different entities.
L. Reid: Noting the hour, I will simply put this on the record for discussion perhaps at a later time. I would like the minister to very briefly respond to a particular sentiment around teen court. The Richmond Family Court Committee has recently provided me with some videotapes of how teens are involved in regulating their peers' behaviour. I'm wondering if your ministry has looked at that, and whether or not it's something we can look forward to in terms of hopefully reducing the amount of time spent in the formal court system in British Columbia.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I, too, have a copy of the tape and have met with the Richmond Family Court Committee. It's a very impressive group, I might say. They have been around for a long time, and I think all the members from Richmond would agree that they have done just outstanding work. It's anecdotal evidence -- I don't have any scientific evidence -- but just from the evidence of reading the newspapers and discovering which communities have problems, Richmond comes up much more rarely than do Surrey or Coquitlam. I think that some measure of the reason for that is the involvement of the community. The teen court idea is one that is really very attractive. Peer pressure is as good a vehicle as any to achieve results. I can't say that there's any particular initiative underway right now to emulate that American model, but some of the notions and principles that underlie it make a lot of sense.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the Richmond Family Court Committee because I, too, have the highest regard for those individuals. Perhaps the minister and I can sit down at some future point and discuss whether or not it's possible to bring this to the table for a more detailed discussion. I thank the minister for his comments.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask a question of the Attorney General with regard to whether he's familiar with the study -- or report or review -- that was done by the ombudsman looking into youth custody centres; it had something to do with peer abuse.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry, my deputy has just slipped out for the moment and I'm just not sure of the status of that investigation by the ombudsoffice at the moment. I think
[ Page 13675 ]
we're in discussions with the ombudsman about the report, but I must say that I don't know offhand. Maybe I'll be able to answer more precisely when my deputy returns.
K. Jones: To perhaps give the minister a guide in the absence of his deputy, I understood that the report was from June 1994, and that it was prepared by Bruce Ronayne of the ombudsman's office. Is the minister familiar with that particular report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think the ombudsman -- if she's going to -- has yet presented to the House a report on this matter, which is the way reports are released.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the minister is not aware -- or is nobody in his ministry aware -- of what was involved in that report?
[5:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it doesn't mean that at all. But until the ombudsman works out what it is she wants to say to the House by way of a report, the discussions are between our ministry and her, and her staff; those discussions go back and forth and they may lead to a report.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the minister is saying that there may or not be a report? My impression is that there actually is a report, and that the report was looking into peer-abusive situations in youth custody centres in British Columbia. Surely the minister should have somebody involved with that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this point I don't know whether or not the report has been tabled, and if it has, what discussions are now following up on that. Until I get one of my staff members involved in that particular area to give me the advice, I just have to beg off.
K. Jones: Has the minister had a chance to review the situation at Willingdon that we have discussed with regard to the youth who was beaten a few weeks ago, and with particular concern, the fact that there was a difference between the statements made by some of his staff and the newspaper article with regard to the other persons who had attacked him and their relationship within the facility?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All I'm going to say about that matter is that the individual in question, when he was returned to the open facility, was placed under full-time guard. And whenever the guard had a coffee break or lunch break, then the individual was locked down. So full-time protection was being provided.
K. Jones: I believe that in the Vancouver Sun article one of your staff persons is said to have indicated that they were not in the same area -- that he was separated from the other youths. Have you been able to find out whether that statement or the other statement is correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I actually don't have time to read the Vancouver Sun, so I don't know what was in the Sun.
J. Dalton: I just have one other item I wish to canvass, and it won't take long. Last year I raised the issue of Dr. John Gossage and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding that case. Peter Leask, of course, extensively investigated the allegations that were being made -- both a recent one and, I guess, a longstanding one. I met with Mr. Leask last fall, and he gave me a good review of the case. As the Attorney General will recall, no criminal charges were recommended, and of course that meant that none were forthcoming.
However, Mr. Leask did indicate, and at a press conference last October 21 he restated, that he would be sending some of the files. I believe there were 22 in total, and I think he indicated he would be sending about half of them to the College of Physicians for perhaps further investigation by that college. I know the Attorney General has received the same correspondence that I have in front of me, from at least one of the people involved. It's my understanding that the college has nothing on file from Mr. Leask. Can the Attorney General confirm whether that is so? There are people out there waiting for answers, and I think they deserve answers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That matter is actually being dealt with, as we speak, by the acting Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal justice branch, on the one hand, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, on the other hand, to ensure that the appropriate information is in fact conveyed so as not to violate any privacy or other provisions.
K. Jones: I'd like to explore with the minister the area of the illegal lottery terminals that are apparently, according to the Premier, throughout British Columbia. According to the Premier, there are 10,000 illegal lottery terminals in British Columbia. Could the minister tell us if that is true or not?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know if I have the number here, but there was a report done through CLEU a few years ago which indicated that there were 8,000 to 10,000 grey machines -- illegal VLTs -- operating throughout the province. If the member is asking me if the Premier was telling the truth, as always, the answer is yes.
K. Jones: Is the CLEU report that you are referring to from a few years ago? It's not the current head of CLEU's report.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit report from the policy analysis division. They say estimates run as high as 10,000 in B.C. I'm looking to see if there's a date on this that will help us. This is a photocopy of the relevant sections of the report, and as a result doesn't have the date on it. But it's the one that was referred to in the media a couple of months ago.
K. Jones: The current head of CLEU has been reported as stating that there was never any figure like that given by his office. They indicated they didn't really have a firm figure, that there was a possibility of some being out there, but that there certainly weren't 10,000, as has been claimed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All I can do is say that the report speaks for itself. I'll read the paragraph:
"With no regulation of so-called grey machines, it is impossible to determine exactly how many machines are installed in locations such as bars, restaurants, pool halls, service club facilities or illegal gaming houses. Estimates run as high as 10,000 in B.C."
[ Page 13676 ]
That report's cover page says "The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, Policy Analysis Division," and the report is entitled "VLTs: Video Lottery Terminal Gaming."
K. Jones: I'd like to take the minister back into another area. It is one that he had considerable discussion with us about, and the item is offshore lottery ticket sales. The minister is fully aware of the legislation he brought through a couple of years ago which made all of those illegal. Could the minister tell us why, as the Attorney General, he has failed to take any action to enforce what was brought in two years ago?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All I am prepared to say at this point is that the matter is under investigation by the police, and the suggestion by the member is nowhere near to being accurate.
I just wonder, before we go any further, whether the member's questions will be exhausted by 6 o'clock so that we can conclude these votes today. The member shakes his head. Therefore, hon. Chair, I would move the 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 moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:35 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
L. Stephens: I would like to continue with administration and support services. Included in this are the operating expenses of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education and the Canadian Education Association. Could the minister tell us where in the subvote this particular expenditure shows up, and how much it is?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: While the answer to that specific question is being obtained, I suggest we go ahead to other questions. We'll come back with the answer as soon as possible.
L. Stephens: I have a series of questions that talk to expenditures. What I would like is an accounting of professional services. What amount has been spent by the ministry on them? That would include the analysis, development and implementation of ministry policy. If there were any professional services employed in that way, what amounts were paid out, and to whom?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The nature of the question requires such detailed information, that staff do not have it. I would suggest that if you provide all the questions of that level of detail, I will undertake to have the answers researched and back to you as quickly as possible.
I can give you one on the CMEC and the CEA -- the Canadian Education Association. That comes to $155,000 and is a grant under STOB 80. And there are OECD, CMEC and CEA projects -- specific projects -- that totalled $25,000 under STOB 82.
L. Stephens: I will supply a list. It's not that terribly long, but one of the things that is on it is the estimated cost of advertising. I wonder if that figure is available to you now, or whether or not I should add that to the list. Does the ministry have a budget for advertising over and above ministry publications -- different educational pamphlets, and so on and so forth, that are available to the schools and distributed to the school boards? What I'd like to know is a cost for advertising of any other nature.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, we will have to break down the vast majority of the amount that comes under communications. It is for the routine publication of information circulars and items such as the updated "Report to Parents," a copy of which I provided you with this morning. That constitutes the vast majority of the budget.
I need to know if I'm correct in presuming that you're also trying to get at whether or not we have spent advertising dollars in the media, for example. Seeing that yes, you are interested, the only way we could provide that is to take our STOB and break it down into all of the subcategories and deliver it to you.
L. Stephens: I will also add to the list public servant travel, which we talked about earlier this morning. If it is not available at the moment then I can add that to the list as well.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to travel, the number that I gave you this morning was a change in the travel amount. The total budget on travel is $1,196,386. If you need a breakdown on that, again that would have to be developed for you and supplied to you.
L. Stephens: This was for public servant travel, is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.
L. Stephens: I will provide the ministry the rest of the questions around the administrative and support services costs, and look forward to the response.
I'd like to talk about the education programs and evaluations section. Net of recoveries is the $30,539,000. Could the
[ Page 13677 ]
minister tell us what those recoveries were? What were the estimated recoveries within education programs and evaluations?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's probably best that I just make a copy of this and supply to you the estimates for the 1994-95 and the 1995-96 years. They break down the recoveries into about six or seven items. There are also some recoveries under student services. This is quite detailed, so I think it would probably be best that I just provide you with a copy.
[2:45]
L. Stephens: Yes, that would be satisfactory. I'll have a list of what I would like.
Under "Education Programs and Evaluation," it provides for the development of the provincial school curriculum. There have been extensive changes to the school curriculum over the last year. How much money has been allocated to the implementation of the new school curriculum, and what are the costs of the changes? What costs were incurred in the new curriculum programs, and how much is being allocated for their implementation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All the development work and curriculum work was done within the general operating budget of ministry operations, scattered throughout all of those personnel who had anything to do with the development work of the IRPs. Everything else came through the regular ministry operations budget.
With respect to implementation in this coming year, we have a budget item of $11.7 million. Most of it will go for in-service training. In addition to that $11.7 million, we have taken from other aspects of the operating budget. We're moving a total of $5 million to in-servicing, to give a total of $16.7 million that the ministry will expend in partnership with districts and the BCTF to do the in-servicing on a very aggressive basis. That process starts right away.
L. Stephens: Was there any work contracted for the new curriculum development? How many of the FTEs that were responsible for the new curriculum were contract employees?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was work contracted to various districts, in the curriculum development work that was done. Then district personnel or teams would work on curriculum in order to feed that material back to the centre. The only, if you will, outside-of-the-system consultations.... Well, there were no consultations as such, but we did retain a company to do some facilitation and reporting of meetings. We can get you the detail level of it, some desktop publishing of the product, but there was no outside consultation with respect to the actual development of the curriculum. It was all done in-house or contracted to districts.
L. Stephens: So there were no outside British Columbia firms involved in developing the provincial curriculum.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We belong to a western Canadian consortium where the western provinces have taken the lead in joint curriculum development. I believe Alberta led on the math curriculum, and we participated with all of the western provinces on that, as all of the eastern provinces are also cooperating. This was a decision -- and I think a very good decision -- taken by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education in order for all of us to contain development costs by sharing some curriculum development and then sharing the product. Beyond that, there has been, to a very limited degree, the purchase of some curriculum, but it is not the foundation curriculum. A curriculum called principles of technology has been piloted in several districts and is well thought of. We have spent a relatively small amount of money in the purchase of that curriculum. But with respect to all of the other development, we have done it mainly in-house with district staff, or in conjunction with another Canadian jurisdiction. In the process of that, if we found elements of a curriculum that looked like they would fit into our needs, we have borrowed broadly in order to bring it all together, but the work, the policy, the curriculum -- all of it -- has been done in-house.
L. Stephens: When the minister was talking about collaborating cooperatively with the western provinces in aspects of curriculum that were applicable to British Columbia -- he mentioned the school achievement indicators program -- I wondered if, in the discussions of the Council of Ministers of Education and other Canadian organizations that the ministry belongs to, there is discussion about national standards -- perhaps about an attempt to have more uniform reporting and assessment of K-to-12 systems across Canada. Is this something the minister supports, and is this part of the conversation at the Ministers of Education conferences that are attended from time to time?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There has been a great deal of discussion with respect to sharing as much as we can, such that there would be a core curriculum across the country, but not a national curriculum per se. There have been, as I've said, consortia in the west working on certain things -- Alberta on math, B.C. on science. They participate with us; we participate with them. For a while it appeared as though we would have nine provinces. Quebec, for some obvious reasons, had some of their own, separate curricula objectives. But for a while it appeared as though we might have all nine provinces working together on some core curricula.
Furthermore, we have agreed on the standard achievement indicators program, on coming up with a joint, mutually agreed to set of indicators for education, such as the dropout rate. It is something that is defined differently in almost every jurisdiction, and even people within the same jurisdiction disagree on its definition. So the CMEC has staff working on the standard achievement indicators program, for example. We want to incorporate some of that in the national education report that we, as ministers, have all committed to, the first edition of which was to come out by December of this year.
We have participated in national testing on reading and writing. Those results became available last spring. We are entering into further tests in science and math on the national testing. Those results, in turn, will be included in the national education report.
L. Stephens: I have here the reading and writing assessment of the school achievement indicators program for 1994. It sets out the different achievements of provinces across Canada and how British Columbia students compare. On average, British Columbia students meet the national average.
[ Page 13678 ]
Before I go on, there is a question around this that I wanted to ask. I see the next assessment is scheduled for 1998, and I would like to know whether or not there are going to be goals for improvement and how those goals for improvement will be measured. What goals are we working toward? What goals is the Ministry of Education working toward for these new assessments that will be done in 1998, with our new curriculum development? What kinds of ongoing monitoring and assessment will there be to determine whether or not we are progressing to higher achievement? Is there anything in place in your ministry that will set that all out?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There have not been specific objectives laid out by each minister for his or her province as to what the goal is -- other than that, in the broad sense, we all wish to see the standards raised; we all want to see the dropout rates decline; we are all participating in bringing in curricula that have more relevance.
There is a virtually unanimous view on the value of properly designed and carried-out standard tests. We have adopted a cycle of testing such that it's not too far from one assessment to the next. If you look within it, there are various provinces that have their own specific problems that they no doubt are going to address at the local level. There is at least one national issue, and that is a gender difference in reading and writing tests, where females have generally performed better in pretty well all age groups. We have to uncover exactly why that is. Perhaps it means that we have to adopt new teaching strategies, for example. The same things may well come out of science and math at the appropriate time. So we are all informing ourselves. We all have our general objective of having the results show ever-increasing, ever-improving performance. But we do not have specific objectives, year to year and province to province.
[3:00]
L. Stephens: My friend here has just passed me a quote that I had forgotten about, and now I remember it. On September 29, 1993, in the Vancouver Sun, you made a statement: "If there is a sense among parents that standards are slipping, and there seems to be that perception, then we can compare our standards in British Columbia to the rest of Canada through national testing. We can confirm whether we are, in fact, slipping." The reason I asked what the ministry was doing in British Columbia was in fact to ascertain whether or not those achievements are slipping or improving. I can't stress enough how important measurements and standards are, only to be able to measure that achievement and that progression.
Those are the issues that parents are really struggling with. They need to have some clear direction and some clear guidelines, some very clear ministry objectives and -- from their viewpoint -- know what their children are expected to achieve. In many ways, they can then help the children to achieve that.
In my view, the leadership needs to come from the ministry to the schools and from the schools to the home so that everyone is working together to provide the kind of support that the schools need, that teachers need and that parents need in order to help their children to achieve.
Perhaps it's not desirable in many places within the school system for standards and assessments, but I think we need to address that issue very clearly and come up with some different ways of assessments in order to better reflect the kinds of skills that students need today. We do have to have them, and I'd like to know where in the K-to-12 system in this province those are clearly set out, where they are clearly expected and what each individual's role is: the student's role, the parent's role, the teacher's role, the school board's role and the ministry's role.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The hon. member must realize that the first step in making any kind of improvement in almost any circumstance is to get the data. Obtain the data, then make some changes, and then compare the new data with the old.
We've just started that process with the SAIP tests. There'll be a four-year cycle of tests, with reading, writing, science, math, social studies, and then back around again, so that four years down the line we will be looking at the results of a new assessment.
In the meantime, in order to strive toward better performance, we are bringing in all the curricula changes that we have been discussing and looking to instructional methods and to the new integrated resource packages in order to give as much assistance as possible to the teachers and to our professionals, looking as much as possible toward -- through equity -- encouraging all students to stay plugged in and to stay involved. The test of everything that we are doing will be when we look at the new results for reading and writing three years down the line. We will then have an answer. Have we made a difference or not?
Clearly the objective is to make a difference. The objective is to bring in the relevance and the new materials, to do the in-service for our staff, to provide them with the best of learning resources, to introduce the technology where technology may help in performance, to keep students involved by assuring them that we care about their plans, to encourage them with their learning plans and career plans. All of those things will lead, I believe, to a higher performance of B.C. students on standard achievement indicators.
Other than saying that that is what we have put in place and that this is what we are doing, two or three or four years from now a minister will be able to stand here and either celebrate the better results or not. I hope it will be the former, but until that happens, I cannot give you a further answer.
L. Stephens: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I would suggest that four years is too long. I am sure -- at least I am pretty sure -- that the minister knows what regular assessment means, and I know, with his background, that he is used to measurement and indeed values measurement and assessment. I think he would understand that once every three or four years really isn't satisfactory.
With the new curriculum that has been implemented, it would seem to me that this is a perfect opportunity to put in place those kinds of measurements on a monitoring, ongoing basis -- to yearly or at six-month intervals, take a temperature reading of how the curriculum is being implemented, how the students are adapting to it and how they learning the new curriculum. It is a perfect opportunity to monitor it as it goes along and to work out or to modify this new curriculum as it is moving through. I would hope that that is part of the ministry's plan and that -- you know -- we're not going to be
[ Page 13679 ]
waiting for four years to find out whether or not this new curriculum works, because, frankly, I don't think that's productive at all. With the new curriculum, are there new standards and assessments in order to monitor, in an ongoing way how the new curriculum is being implemented and received, student learning, and those other indicators that we need here in British Columbia more than once every four years?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The standard achievement indicator program costs about $1 million for a complete cross-Canada evaluation. After much consideration, the ministers agreed that these were desirable. We have chosen four areas to track: language arts, math, science and social studies. One million dollars a year is a fair amount; it's particularly stressful to some of the provinces that don't have quite the dynamic economy that we have.
I would say this to the hon. member: if a ministry of education had put a four-year cycle of national assessments in place 20 years ago, we would have a wealth of data for determining what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong and for making those long-term decisions. From the time that we introduce a new set of curricula, we don't necessarily see the benefit in six months or one year or two years.
For example, with the changes we are making in the career and personal planning, along with relevance and consultation and job shadowing and work experience, it's going to be five years before those young men and women reach graduation and we know how much we have impacted graduation rates. Now, in the meantime, we can well look at average scores on grade 12 exams next year, the year following and the year following that. We have some provincial learning assessments that we do. We have the ongoing participation in the national and then the international, as well. If we have succeeded with the degree of relevance that we have, and if we succeed with the injection of information technology, the refocus over to applied academics and the involvement mentally of more of our men and women, then I am confident that we will see an improvement each year with respect to some indicator or other within the system
But changes in the education system -- to change a $4 billion system with 35,000 teachers and the number of schools that we have.... Just the change takes a lot. It is a four-year cycle just to introduce the new curriculum, to have it up and fully running. I hoped, initially, that we might be able to do it in two years, but the partners in education -- the trustees, the superintendents, the principals, the vice-principals and the teachers -- were of a single view that that was inconceivable, that I would bring the whole system down, in fact. After much consultation back and forth, they compromised and I compromised and we settled on a four-year implementation.
So we are not going to have the full set of curricula in place, and the first opportunity to test on those complete new curricula, for four years. I wish it could be faster, but the practicalities of operating a system this size simply means that the improvements that we make have to be piece-wise improvements, and we have to look at what indicators we have and try to glean as much information as possible out of those.
I think the four-year cycle for our standard achievement indicators countrywide is probably adequate. Again, it would be nice to have it more frequently, but frankly, the ministries across the country are of the view that they cannot afford the additional assessment.
L. Stephens: Perhaps I misled the minister somewhat in my questions before; I was not questioning the need for the SAIPs on a more frequent basis. What I was asking was whether or not, with the implementation of this year's '95-96 curriculum, there are in place monitoring programs of some kind to help facilitate the implementation of that program and to work out any bugs that may be there -- to somehow monitor to make sure that it is, in fact, being implemented in the appropriate manner, that students are learning and that teachers do have the resources that they need to implement this. Also, after this '95-96 curriculum year is completed, is there going to be an evaluation done on this portion of the curriculum, and following that, as you progress down the four years?
So that is what I would like to know: are there benchmarks in place, what are they and what areas do they encompass?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be suitable accountability, checking and evaluation. Each school is to strike school-based implementation committees involving the various partners in education. Each district knows that some of the new curricula, such as the graduation curriculum, must be fully implemented by September 1995, and those students must be ready for their first set of provincial exams under the new curriculum by June 1995. So, yes, we will be checking along the way to see that that implementation has occurred completely and smoothly.
[3:15]
In other areas of curriculum change, the boards have the ability for a little management. They must commence implementation in September 1996, but the implementation can be rolled out over a two-year period, such that the complete implementation of the batch of curricula introduced in September 1995 must be done in all their schools by June 1997; then there will be a new batch coming in September 1996 that runs to June 1998, etc. All the way along, there will be checks and accountability required, in partnership with the districts and right down to school level, to make sure that's happening.
F. Garden: I probably don't want to upset the line of questioning from the critic over there as far as the minister is concerned, but I do have a concern, and it's to do with the capital envelope, I believe. I'd like to raise it at this time, because I'd like to know how soon we will get to the figures on capital spending on replacement schools.
I have a particular interest in Helen Dixon School in Quesnel, and I brought some safety concerns before the ministry well over a year ago. Far be it from me to be parochial at this time, but I certainly would like to know how soon the minister will be coming out.... I know that this was a priority.
An Hon. Member: Just before the election.
F. Garden: Well, I'm hoping it comes out.... There was an interjection from the other member. I don't think we play these kind of games in our party, but certainly it's near and dear to me, and I want to know very soon what I could be saying to the people up in Quesnel about the replacement of Helen Dixon School. Will the capital envelope be coming out soon?
[ Page 13680 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The record of this government in capital expenditure has been second to none in Canada -- about $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion in school infrastructure investment over the first three budgets. That is a statement of this government as to our view of the importance of schools. We have a rapidly growing enrolment, some 14,000 additional students this year, and we had a substantial backlog of portables to address at the same time.
We have a very tight and very tough corporate debt management plan in place. The details of the capital envelope, or cash flow envelope, that I will have this year will be made available in the early part of May, so I am unable to comment on Helen Dixon, for example, as a specific project. But I can assure you that the needs of 75 districts are going to be fairly and carefully considered. Even though I am faced with a rather tight envelope this year, those funds that I do have will be distributed in an equitable and fair manner.
W. Hurd: I find this discussion of benchmarking or establishing standards to be fascinating, because I think it's really important in measuring the outputs from our education system. Leaving aside the curriculum aspects of the discussion for a moment, can the minister tell us whether the ministry has any more simple benchmarks -- for example, the number of students that are educated in portable classrooms in the province or the number of computers per school or per student? Clearly, when it comes to learning in the province of British Columbia, there is, as the minister knows, a great deal of concern about the two-tier education system, where some students are educated in buildings and others in portables. At least, there's a belief that that represents a two-tier system of education.
As the minister will also agree, there is a wide disparity in access to computer technology by students across the province. In assessing the overall needs of British Columbia students, does the ministry have a set of benchmarks, such that by the year 1997 or the year 2000 we are going to have X number of computers or X number of reductions in portable classrooms in the province?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's ironic that a member representing a party that is in favour of slashing capital investments and of not permitting justifiable debt to occur would be the one who would stand up and ask questions about portables, and about capital generally. The district that the member represents has had approximately a quarter of a billion dollars invested in it over the past three years. It is the highest amount of investment that has gone into any district, and the number of portables in that district has significantly decreased. But the member knows full well that the quarter of a billion dollars that has been invested in the children and families of Surrey-White Rock also adds to the debt of this province. When they stand in their place and criticize debt and constantly harp on reining in government from building this debt, they doth speak out of both sides of their mouth. You cannot come on the one hand and say, "Build more schools; get rid of portables; put computers in every room with every child," and at the same time, in another site and place, criticize government for spending money and for incurring debt.
You cannot have it both ways, hon. member. Either you can have schools and some debt that goes with those schools and the replacement of some portables, or you can have a severe debt management program that then impedes the ability to construct schools. And it's the same on the operating side. It is just a tad short perhaps of hypocrisy to criticize the increase in budgetary spending on the one hand, but on the other hand ask for more for one's district. You can only have it one way, member, and I would suggest that you stand in your place and suggest which way you would like it. Do you want us to incur some additional debt that will then enable us to build schools? Or do you wish to rigidly control the debt and have the students in Surrey in portables?
W. Hurd: One of the values of these estimates is that as members of the assembly representing regions of the province we have the opportunity to stand up and ask questions on behalf of students and parents in the various districts. Certainly some of the questions we are posing today about the number of students who may be educated in portable classrooms by the year 2000 are questions that I am sure the minister has heard from students and parents -- they have asked him the same question. I think it's a legitimate question in terms of benchmarking in education to ask the minister: what is the target? Leaving aside the debt issues, surely the minister has some idea of what the goal of the ministry is with respect to technology in the classroom, the availability of aides and the number of children being educated in portable classrooms. Are those decisions totally up to the school board? Is the minister saying that we're going to hand out the funds, both on the capital and operating side, and that it isn't our concern or our responsibility whether a disparity exists between one district or another, or whether some students have access to more computers than others?
Clearly it's not one of the recommendations of the Sullivan commission. I believe it urged the ministry to establish those kinds of benchmarks in the curriculum, for example, to try to establish how many computers students should have access to on a per capita basis, some type of benchmark. Surely if we can do that with a funding formula, there must be some way of doing it with respect to portable classrooms and other educational aids.
The minister stood up during his opening remarks and lectured the opposition about the evils of a two-tier system, about the fact that we risk having some British Columbian children enjoy a different level of education than others. But if the minister is standing up today and saying that he has no benchmark for portable classrooms, no idea how many students are going to be educated by the year 2000 and no idea about how many students are going to have access to computers in their schools, is that not an example of the minister washing his hands of what amounts to a two-tier system, which is currently being practised in the field?
He can stand up and talk about the debt and the deficit and try to recreate that debate if he so chooses. But it would seem to me, again addressing the concerns that are raised with all members of this assembly by parents and students and educators, that it is appropriate for the ministry to at least consider those types of benchmarks, which I think would go a long way towards ensuring that we have a one-tier system in the province of British Columbia with respect to the number of students being educated in portables versus the number of students who have access to computers and those who do not. Is there any intention on the part of the ministry to get into those types of standards, which I really think are as important as standards for measuring curriculum in the province of British Columbia?
[ Page 13681 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member is suggesting that because some children are in portables and others are not that constitutes a two-tier education system, then I must put back to the member that he then must be strongly in favour of a two-tier education system, because every time we make investments in schools and acquire school bond debts as a result, the member and his party criticize. They say: "You should not be doing that. You should not be running this province into debt." So if I was to take his words and follow them through to the logical conclusion, we, of course, would not be building schools. We would have far, far more students in Surrey in portables. Instead of the quarter of a billion dollars that have been expended to move thousands and thousands of students out of portables, we would have those thousands and thousands in -- and thousands and thousands more -- if this member had his way. Indeed, you must support to an amazing degree a two-tier education system.
The position of this government is that there is a place for portables on a short-term basis. If we have data that indicates a bulge in enrolment is moving through and portables could serve a purpose -- up to, who knows, eight or ten years in time -- that's a legitimate use of portables. It is also a legitimate use where in a rapidly expanding district you use portables until you have enough to build a new school. To build a new school and only have it half-full to start with would be an inefficient use of capital, so portables have their place.
Are there too many portables in Surrey? Are there too many portables in Richmond? Yes. We would like to invest more money. That means, of course, that we would be incurring more debt. I presume that the member opposite would be pleased to stand in his place and say: "Yes, I approve an increased debt load for the citizens of British Columbia in order that we can provide sufficient permanent educational facilities."
[3:30]
On the technology side, the details of the technology plan, as I've said earlier today, will be rolled out in a couple of weeks, but we have a target of moving toward about one computer per six elementary students and one computer for three secondary students. In Ontario, for example -- I do not have data for every province; I believe we are probably at the best ratios in the country -- there are about 12 elementary per computer and seven secondary per.... I'm sorry, we are currently at seven. So we are working to six to one, elementary, and three to one, secondary.
W. Hurd: Continuing the discussion with respect to new infrastructure, can the minister tell us whether in this set of estimates the ministry has identified opportunities for public sector-private sector partnerships in the construction of school buildings, the acquisition of land costs and the potential contributions by developers in offsetting the costs of school construction? Clearly that represents an alternative to the massive increase in debt to which the minister alluded.
Naturally, there are some in the minister's party who might have some concerns about that type of public policy. But in light of the fact that there is a constraint on taxes and revenues in the province of British Columbia, I wonder whether the ministry intends to actively pursue those types of arrangements, and whether or not any funds have been dedicated in this set of estimates to more actively pursuing that worthy goal of providing badly needed infrastructure -- particularly better designs for portable classrooms -- without incurring the kind of debt the minister has talked about.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The details of the member's question should be pursued through Employment and Investment. But I can give you some overview in that area. We are contemplating steps with respect to sites. The costs of school sites are very high. We have some action under consideration.
But with respect to the public sector playing a role in the construction of facilities for more or less permanent occupation by a board or a school, that does not provide a way around the debt problem, unfortunately. If you check with the auditor general, I think you will hear the same advice. If you are entering into a long-term lease to occupy a specifically built building, you have to capitalize the full cost of the lease. The cost for a private sector developer to build a school is probably higher than for the public sector.
The private sector does not have access to anything remotely approaching our credit level. They would be paying a premium of 2 to 3 percent in interest. Secondly, the private sector requires over and above whatever their costs are in profit. So their additional interest costs and additional profit costs must be built into the lease cost, and the lease must be capitalized and carried by the government as debt. So there is not such an easy way around the issue.
W. Hurd: I note that the cost of each portable that currently exists in the province of British Columbia is considerable, as well. One of the problems the minister will be aware that districts run into is the rate of capital depreciation for those temporary buildings and the fact that once they are fully depreciated, the districts don't necessarily have the operating funds to adequately maintain them. The parents in fast-growing districts like Richmond and Surrey are saying that surely there has to be a way to produce a more classroom-friendly portable classroom.
The steel trailers that you see sprouting at even new schools are not, in the opinion of many parents, conducive to learning or to the type of atmosphere that would contribute to a positive feeling about the school and the district. When we talk about potential for public sector-private sector partnerships, I wonder if there is a possibility of at least addressing the question from the portable end rather than current....
The minister suggests that the private sector couldn't build the schools as cheaply as the public sector. If the lease costs have to be capitalized as debt, that's a legitimate concern. But with respect to the portable classrooms, when we have this gap between the arrival of the students and the identified need for the school, and then the four or five years before it gets funded and built, would there not be an opportunity for the private sector to be involved in developing some type of modular portable classroom capable of being moved from site to site, which would provide a more creative and positive learning environment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I thought the quality of newly delivered portables that I have seen firsthand was actually very high. They're all built, of course, by the public sector, by corporations that specialize in temporary buildings. They do typically have an economic life of about 15 years. If a district
[ Page 13682 ]
has to have a portable for that length of time -- for whatever reason -- not only do they receive maintenance funds to apply to that portable, but they can apply for a replacement, if need be.
Some districts hold on to portables that, by the rules of the system, they are not entitled to. They are called unshared or unfunded portables. Those portables belong strictly to the school district to maintain however they see fit or to use for whatever purpose they see fit. It is not part of the ministry budget or process -- capital, maintenance or anything -- not at all. They are strictly their own wholly owned portables. If you've seen some in particularly poor condition, that would have to be taken up with a district.
I would also point out that although it may be highly desirable to have washroom facilities in portables -- it makes them more usable -- there is also a substantial expense to that. In fact, some districts would probably object to improving portables to that degree, because then they would start to see them as temporary/permanent schools rather than just portables. It would also interfere with the relocation of portables.
Basically, I think that the portables we purchase are of good quality. They're of good, sound design. They are relocatable; they are maintained. And if they are on-site in the order of 15 years, they would be replaced by the ministry.
L. Stephens: I would like to make a comment about the capital program, although we will get to that a little later on. The portables that we have sitting on every school yard in the province could perhaps be addressed in a more creative way. Year-round schooling could be one of them. We're going to talk about that a little later on, too.
I haven't seen anything from the ministry that is even questioning or looking at year-round schooling and flexible hours, and all the creative ways that we could perhaps alleviate some of the stresses and overcrowding in some schools. I know that the minister has visited some of them, particularly in Richmond. Those are things we need to talk about concerning portables.
I want to go back for a minute to curriculum, because I have a couple of questions. You talked earlier about the kinds of checks that were in place, and you indicated that there was monitoring and ongoing assessment with the new curriculum. I would like to know who is responsible for the actual monitoring. Who is accountable? Is it the individual schools, the teachers, the school boards or the ministry? Who is accountable for this ongoing monitoring of student achievement and implementation of the new curriculum?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Once the new curriculum has been rolled out, then it is fundamentally the responsibility of the local boards to see that it is properly implemented throughout their district. We are taking it a step further, and the ministry itself is going to check in at every school to see that implementation is occurring. We want to satisfy ourselves that it's happening in a timely way. The accreditation process also plays a role, because we have now extended accreditation to all elementary as well as secondary schools. All schools being accredited -- and it's approximately one in six each year -- will be particularly closely looked at during that process.
I want to comment on something you said at the beginning of your question, hon. member, which is that we don't seem to be paying too much attention to year-round schooling. I must beg to differ. The year-round schooling pilots are going on because I took personal interest in year-round schools as a possible answer to the overcrowding issue, an answer that did not require very large capital investment. That's on the one side. On the other is that we have capital investments, particularly in our major centres, where the land and buildings could be worth $40 million.
A public investment of that magnitude deserves to be used as much as possible, not just for year-round schooling but for almost day-round community use, if you will. Pilots such as Kids At Risk are also looking at how we can utilize schools for other purposes. I've sent out strong signals that I support community schools, partly because that fits into evening and weekend use of the facilities. I've also sent out a strong signal through the year-round pilot program, which I called for and created, to all districts that year-round schools should be looked at very seriously. That debate is occurring now in about six of our districts, and many other districts are looking on as very interested observers.
L. Stephens: I'd like to talk about year-round schooling and the pilot projects that are underway, but I would first like to go back once more to the curriculum and talk a bit about some of the other countries we're in competition with. I'm sure the minister knows that in Germany, for instance, courses are introduced to students at an earlier time in their learning than is done in British Columbia, and that there are significant advantages to this. The level of achievement these students attain is measurably and significantly higher than Canadian students reach -- not just British Columbian students, but students all over Canada as well.
[3:45]
Is there any move or thought on the part of the minister to look at preparing and making other curriculum changes, along the lines of being more competitive with countries other than Canada, in order to provide our students with an opportunity to be competitive at an international level? As the minister knows, there are levels of achievement and performance in reading and writing that are measured in the SAIPs. The same could be incorporated, using introductory curriculum, at a much earlier stage of a child's learning. I wonder if the minister has considered that at all.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: B.C. compares quite well. Canada as a whole does, too, but B.C. compares quite well, even on international ratings. But I guess some explanation is necessary to put it in context. There are other jurisdictions -- Germany is certainly one of them -- that have a highly streamed system and that have no special needs children in the regular school. They attend their own segregated special needs schools. Within the school there is further segregation into various streams. There is the gymnasium stream -- those children who are headed for university and who are prepared for that from a relatively young age, probably around 11 or 12. Other students in the German system....
It is, for the needs of Germany, a remarkable system. I have a high regard for it. But in their system, a good percentage of their students start to work three days a week and attend school two days a week, beginning at age 15. That comes out of their highly streamed model. Quite often when we compare tests country to country, we are comparing the performance of British Columbia students, who are all in the classroom and all taking the test -- a tremendous range of
[ Page 13683 ]
academic ability -- and we report out a performance from that. That gets compared to Germany, where perhaps only 25 or 30 or 40 percent of the students took the test, because the other ones are not even in school anymore. They're on an extended work experience program. The same thing can be said of many other countries.
I was just passed the international science achievement, where Alberta actually ranked highest in Canada -- around 74. B.C. was just under that, at just about 73. Ninety percent or more of countries and jurisdictions are lower. One that ranks higher than British Columbia is Hungary. I don't know that we would trade our entire education system for Hungary's -- Switzerland's, possibly. Taiwan and Korea also rank higher. All of other international and national jurisdictions rank lower than British Columbia.
I would suggest that if you were to take all the students in the other countries on our model -- no streaming, all-inclusive, special needs included -- and try to duplicate those testing results, you would find that we have an excellent system indeed. It can be made better still. We can continue to respond to the changes that are occurring in our economy and our society, but I do not agree with the analysis of some, and the reporting of some, that Canadian schools are somehow inferior to those of the world at large. That is not so.
L. Stephens: Around this whole issue of curriculum, if I led the minister to believe that I believe the British Columbia education system is inferior, that is not the case. I always look at improving, at things that can be improved and at ways that we can improve the system in the best interests of all our learners.
I'm fortunate to have known a couple of families that immigrated to British Columbia from Austria and whose children attended school in British Columbia. What they had to tell me was that it was easy here. They all found it very easy, for the reason that they had already taken that level of work, some of it two to three years before they moved here from Austria. For them to go through high school was just a snap because they had already taken most of the work.
And by the way, these were boys and girls, and they were not streamed. They were going through the regular; they were not in the applied sciences or the apprenticeship programs or anything like that. They went through the regular German school system. So when I look at the curriculum, particularly at the senior secondary level, I'm going to be interested to see whether some more rigorous standards and curriculum are going to be demanded of our high school students in order for them to be on a level playing field with the rest of the students in our competitor countries. That is the point I would like to make to the minister. I suggest that that is something we need to factor in when we are looking at curriculum development.
Continuing with the curriculum and talking about the technology program, what I'd like to know is....The minister talked about the cost of the new curriculum, and he spoke specifically about technology. I asked about contracting out and whether or not we in fact purchased curriculum content from other jurisdictions, such as America, New Zealand, Britain or wherever. I wonder if the minister could talk a little about the technology programs that are being introduced, where some of the ideas have come from and whether or not we are in fact purchasing modules or components of the technology programs that are going to be introduced into the schools.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In terms of purchased curricula, again, the only one is principles of technology, and that is one we are simply in the process of evaluating. We're doing eight pilots where, as part of applied academic pilot studies, the principles of technology is being evaluated: Cranbrook, Central Okanagan, Lillooet, Langley, Vancouver, Nechako, Cowichan and Kitimat. We have not made any final determination yet as to whether or not that particular curriculum meets our requirements, but it is being evaluated at these pilot sites.
L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate how long the evaluation process will be and when there may be a definitive answer on what that technology program may look like for the school system?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is funded as a two-year pilot study.
L. Stephens: The 1995-96 estimates indicate that the Skills Now initiative is to be funded at $20.4 million, last year it was to be $6.5 million. How much of the previous year's amount was actually spent in support of the projects in the system?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Skills Now was two years; $6.5 million was to be committed last fiscal year and I guess $13.5 million this year. The $6.5 million was fully committed. That included the cost of the evaluation at the pilot sites of the principles of technology. Just under half a million of the $650,000 last year went to the pilot sites in these eight districts to pilot principles of technology.
L. Stephens: How was the amount of $20 million arrived at and what kinds of criteria were used to arrive at this particular figure?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Last year when the Skills Now program was taking form, we in K to 12 argued for as large a share of the $200 million as possible. After much pushing and shoving, we ended up with $20 million to be expended, as I said, as $6.5 million in the first year and $13.5 million the second. Because the Skills Now program in K to 12 has done so well and has been received with such overwhelming support, Treasury Board was kind enough to allocate an additional $7 million into this fiscal year, which brings us from the $13.5 million up to $20 million or $20.5 million.
Many of the projects that started last year had two-year funding commitments which used up the original $20 million -- virtually all of it. We have an additional $7 million now, and we will be consulting with districts and looking at some proposals in order to determine how that $7 million will be spent.
L. Stephens: That was my next question. How is that $7 million going to be spent if you have some firm proposals? What would the broad parameters be? Are you looking at a specific kind of technology or specific districts? What are the criteria around spending this extra $7 million?
[4:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a set of criteria that is virtually developed. I understand that it is going to be coming to me shortly for sign-off. On the basis of those criteria, we will then accept some proposals from districts for how we will
[ Page 13684 ]
go about expending the $7 million. It will be tilted toward the interface between K to 12 and post-secondary to try to prepare young men and women, as much as we can, through the Skills Now program in general, to make that transition.
L. Stephens: I presume that post-secondary means colleges, universities and trades or vocational technologies as well and that there would be criteria around that. What I would like to know is: what are the criteria that you are accepting around these pilot projects?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I said, the details of the criteria are just being finalized and will be brought to me for sign-off shortly. We will make sure that we look at the curriculum content aspect of the Skills Now-related courses to make sure that the curriculum in any of the areas ties in nicely and allows the laddering into post-secondary. Of course, I couldn't give you any further advice because you might be able to take advantage of it in Langley, and that would be an undue advantage. I must inform all 75 districts at the same time.
L. Stephens: Of course, I was inquiring in my capacity as critic for all the province and would certainly never take advantage of the position to advantage my district in any way. I want the minister to know that.
This subvote also provides for the grants and contributions for textbooks, media materials, course materials and provincial assessment examination activities. I want to talk a bit about the new examination policies, but not quite yet. I'd like to know what amounts have been spent on textbooks, media materials and course materials, whether or not there is another amount over and above the new curriculum, or if the amounts that we talked about earlier around the costs for the new curriculum include textbooks and those kinds of things. Recognizing that there may be some overlap there, what I'd like to know is: do you have an amount from the province spent specifically for textbooks, media materials and course materials around the curriculum, aside from the new?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the block amounts that go out to all districts, there is a total of something like $27 million that can then be utilized for learning resources. Some of it is purchased, of course, through the central learning resources, and some purchased by districts. I was taking your question to mean all learning resources within the block. If I have not taken that correctly, you could ask further.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
L. Stephens: Yes, that is what I was inquiring about. In regard to the mandatory testing for students that the minister announced on March 14, could the minister expand on what this will encompass and how it will be administered?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The provincial learning assessment that you've inquired about will be an assessment process whereby all children in grade 4, grade 7 and grade 10 go through an examination. It's in four areas again: math, science, socials and language arts. In the first year of this relaunched PLAP, we're actually going to do two tests. We're going to do both math and science, and that has come about as a result of trying to coordinate that set of tests with an international set of testing that's going to be occurring at about that time. So we're just going to piggyback on that a little and accomplish some, if you will, economies of scale by doing both those evaluations. But it will go to a four-year cycle again, separate from the four-year cycle on the national tests, but I think we'll be able to interrelate the results. On the provincial assessment it is a test that all children write at a given grade level, rather than in some of the others where samples are chosen to write.
L. Stephens: Part of what the minister said at the time was that these results would be used to develop standards of performance and may result in modification to the curriculum, which was what we were saying a little earlier about monitoring and making sure as we go along that programs are in fact adequate. Could the minister tell us what this is likely to cost? Do you have a budget in mind that you're going to be setting aside each year of that four-year cycle? Do you have a business plan or a timeline set out, and how much is it going to cost each year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The cost of the individual assessments is going to be in the order of $500,000; two would normally cost $1 million. They're going to cost roughly about $800,000 because of what I mentioned earlier -- the economies of scale of combining this particular assessment with the Third International Math and Science Study assessment that's going to be happening, the so-called TIMSS. We're getting about $200,000 in savings as we launch the new provincial learning assessments.
L. Stephens: In the estimates for 1995-96, under what area is funding allocated for testing?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount would be in the budget of the examinations branch.
L. Stephens: In the education programs and evaluation section, would it fall under grants and contributions or under operating costs? That's what my question was.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It would be under operating costs.
L. Stephens: Under the heading "Asset Acquisitions," could the minister indicate how much of the whole asset acquisitions budget of the ministry -- which to my understanding is $1.532 million -- is dedicated to the purchase of office furniture and equipment, and for whom?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is $362,706, and that is not tied to any specific building or specific individuals. It is the amount allocated for the ongoing replacement of furniture assets.
L. Stephens: Throughout the ministry therefore, this is what you've allocated in your budget for upgrading and replacing furniture and equipment in the ministry itself.
Before we get further along, I want to ask a question about the recoveries. What makes up the education programs and evaluation recoveries? It's quite substantial. Could the minister set out what some of those recoveries consist of?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've made reference to a sheet this morning, and I could give you a copy of it, but I'll just
[ Page 13685 ]
read a couple of the major recovery items. One is recovery from school districts for sale of authorized titles. That was $1 million, and curriculum guides and support documents was $600,000. There's another item, which is charges for various correspondence courses, to recover some of the costs of printing and marking; that was $1.7 million. There are a number of others, and the total is $3.5 million.
[4:15]
L. Stephens: These sales were to whom?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll give you some 1995-96 figures. Under "Learning Resources," we purchase material -- books or texts -- and the districts turn around and purchase them from us. For selling from out of stock, books to school districts, there's $1 million estimated for this year; for curriculum guides and support documents, where we have a charge associated with them, $600,000; for recommended videos and contracts for duplication services, $1 million. In other areas, charges to B.C. adults for secondary school equivalency standing examinations, there's $225,000; the curriculum recovery from school districts that charged the school districts for the integrated resource packages, $1 million. This year the grand total of estimated recoveries from this activity for educational programs is $5.8 million. I can give you a copy of the sheet, so you can see the details.
L. Stephens: The ministry purchases resource materials and in turn sells them to the districts for a small handling fee, I would presume. Is there room to allow school boards to purchase independently of the ministry a sizeable percentage of resource materials? Has the ministry considered allowing more independent purchasing by the school districts and the individual schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is ample leeway now. In fact, if the system could be criticized, it's that it's wide-open. Districts don't need to purchase their materials from the centre at all. They can purchase any approved resource that they need for a course. A criticism that the auditor general has made is that that's costing us all money. Obviously, if we can purchase centrally.... And it's not just textbooks; I've broached the general subject with the system of computers, of software. Anything we can approach utilizing the power of central purchasing, we can then get and pass on to districts at cost. I think it would be much to the advantage of all of us.
There are also some areas, such as in technology again, where if we were to make a decision centrally about the kind of computer and the capabilities of the computer, we could then be confident that we were getting it at the lowest possible cost by purchasing direct from manufacturers. We could also be confident that all of the schools would have equally utilizable computers that were compatible with the software, rather than the situation now where we have dozens of different kinds of computers, many of them now orphans. There is no corporation that stands behind them, no service -- nothing. So I am very much in favour of driving the whole system toward much more centralized purchasing.
L. Stephens: Well, it would certainly make sense from an economic and efficiency side of the question to make sure that all the systems worked in conjunction with one another. It would certainly make the delivery of education more meaningful. The contracts for publication of this material: does the ministry contract out for this material and, if so, how much is contracted out and to whom?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I was about to stand up and say that we simply put out calls for publishers to submit to our evaluation process whatever they have in the way of resources, texts, kits and materials. We then put them through a rather rigorous evaluation procedure where we bring in educators from all over the province. They get put onto the approved list of learning resources, and individual boards can then order from the approved list. If they order 500 copies of such-and-such text, then the ministry will purchase them at best price and pass them on at cost to the districts involved.
In the instance of one case that I am aware of this year -- a project that Rick Hansen and Associates are carrying out -- they are developing some resources for use in the system, and we have contracted, in that instance specifically, to have that work done and prepared.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
L. Fox: I appreciate the opportunity to get in, because I think there's a very serious principle here that one must address in terms of centralized purchasing versus local purchasing.
The first thing I want to point out is that I think it behooves the ministry to come up with standards and criteria that provide universality in purchasing. But I don't think we want to take away purchasing within local communities, and centralized purchasing obviously creates a climate which does not allow communities the size of Prince George in northern British Columbia and Kamloops in the Kootenays, to compete with a large buy that would be done on a provincial basis. In many instances, they're not only taxpayers, but the business done throughout the respective government agencies in those locations helps make it possible for that industry to survive in those locations and thereby grow and become an integral part of the commercial base of that community.
I think we have to be very careful when we're talking about a mass purchase of computers through a centralized purchase by the Ministry of Education. We have to recognize that there may be a little more cost in terms of the initial costs, but given the right criteria being designed and the right protections being in the system, there may be a whole lot more value to the taxpayer in the overall scheme of things by making sure that we don't cut out opportunities for business in other areas. I just wanted to make that observation.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With the exception of the hon. member having relocated my own constituency to the Kootenays, I'm putting Kamloops back into the Thompson.
I understand and appreciate your point. It's a delicate balance between trying to have some standardization through the system -- for example, a site licence in software.... If we can purchase from a major software house a site licence for a certain kind of, let us say, word processing program, we have a licence that authorizes the use of that product anywhere in the province. If we continue with where we are now and have each district go out and purchase two, three, five or seven, not only are they purchasing at the absolute maximum cost for that product, but we end up with incompatibility sometimes
[ Page 13686 ]
between the software and the hardware. We end up with purchases where we're into blind alleys. But I take your point. If we are going to make a large purchase of a certain kind of computer, we could set the criteria, set the standards and set everything that needs to be set in the sense of a tender and have a major corporation tender the price. But we could have the product delivered through all the branches throughout the province, and each branch could then build in a reasonable profit level plus, more importantly, the ongoing servicing contracts for those machines. I think there probably is a happy middle ground somewhere in there, where we can accomplish both goals.
L. Stephens: Just continuing on with the process of acquiring publications, the minister mentioned that Rick Hansen is presently working on a program in conjunction with the ministry. Could the ministry elaborate on this program? What are the criteria? What is the mandate and anything else that's relevant?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The contract that Mr. Hansen is working on is a life skills curriculum that involves mentoring from communities and overcoming challenges. Obviously Mr. Hansen and the corporation that he operates through have a great deal to offer. It is, in fact, a kind of partnership arrangement where the ministry is doing some aspects and Mr. Hansen's firm is doing others. It will eventually, after it's gone through final evaluation, become available as a learning resource that could be used in career and personal planning, for example.
L. Stephens: How much is this costing?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The final cost to the ministry cannot at this point in time be determined. The overall contract is about $470,000, but there is some potential participation of some corporate sponsors, the details of which I cannot get into. That could save the taxpayers some money and reduce the ultimate cost of this particular learning resource to something between $300,000 to $400,000.
L. Stephens: Hon. Chair, $470,000 is a substantial amount of money. I would like to know a little more about this and what, exactly, these life skills are that Rick Hansen and his group are coming up with, and how long they have to present something to the ministry.
[4:30]
I'm sure that there must be a mandate that this group has to.... Certainly, if they were not invited to present something, then they in turn -- when they presented their proposals -- would have laid out those clearly. If Rick Hansen and his group presented a proposal to the ministry, what was that proposal? Conversely, if the ministry went out looking for a group or an organization, what was the mandate that the ministry determined would be the criteria?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, the overall product that is now being delivered is in the integrated resource package. There is text material, video and other materials, all of which key, again, on overcoming adversity and on choices and challenges -- an area in which Mr. Hansen has world-renowned ability. At the end of the day, we will be able to provide to each school the complete free package, so the cost I have made mention of is the ministry cost. There will not be costs to the schools. It is not something that they have to turn around and purchase. A large number of these packages of resources which incorporate elements of different curricula within, will be distributed free -- one to each school.
L. Stephens: Was this a contract? Was it tendered? Did the ministry go looking for this package? Could the minister explain how it came about? Was this tendered, or did the ministry simply award this contract to Rick Hansen and his organization?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process started out as an unsolicited proposal but then developed into a partnership agreement between the ministry and Mr. Hansen, in the amount I have indicated.
L. Stephens: I'm sure the minister knows that contracts over a certain amount of money need to be publicly tendered, so the question is: was this entered into in a contractual arrangement, and if so, was it or was it not tendered?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, this was not a tendered contract. It came about as a partnership agreement with Mr. Hansen's firm.
L. Stephens: Well, whether or not it's a partnership is also.... You can enter into a partnership that is contractual, and, of course, that is one of the definitions of partnership. Four hundred and seventy thousand dollars for a partnership that is not tendered.... Perhaps the minister could explain the difference between a partnership and a contract.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't know for sure what the member is pursuing. There is a process in place where a product or a call may be tendered, but if the product that one is looking for is highly specific in nature, one can just contract for the work to be done.
I think we've done one better here, in that through a contractual partnership agreement, we have input, both from the ministry and Mr. Hansen, in an area that is very specific. Mr. Hansen is, on a worldwide scale, eminently suitable to develop that kind of material.
I'm very proud of the fact that this is one that we have pursued, regardless of party lines, and I'm also very proud of the fact that Mr. Hansen has, in the first instance, approached us with this idea. I think it was a great idea, and although I haven't seen the final package yet, I fully expect that it is going to be a great package that I will be very proud of distributing to every school in the province.
L. Stephens: Well, I'm sure it will be, too. I will also say that Mr. Hansen is eminently qualified to come up with a package based upon what the minister has said that that learning resource would be developed around.
As far as references to party affiliations, perhaps the minister would like to share with me what Mr. Hansen's may be, because I am not aware of them -- if that is the inference that he was making. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of debate does not belong in estimates. What I was simply asking was around the government guidelines of a tendering process that this appears to contravene. The minister, I see, is shaking his head no.
[ Page 13687 ]
The argument that Mr. Hansen's firm.... From what I took from the minister's remark, he was suggesting that Mr. Hansen's firm was the only one that was capable of providing this kind of service in this province. That may be. However, I would be interested to know if in fact there were other firms approached to provide the same kind of service, because, after all, life skills are not that unique. I would ask the minister what efforts were made to bring about some kind of a competitive process in order to find the best group that could provide this particular kind of resource material for the ministry. Or, in fact, did the ministry simply say: "This is what we want, this is who we want and this is what we're going to do?" So it's either one or the other: either there were some wide-ranging inquiries, or there were not. Perhaps the minister could state clearly which one it was.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When an individual approaches the ministry with a good idea and says, "Here is a kind of learning resource that I think the system should have," and when the individual is eminently qualified to follow through, then I think it's entirely appropriate to enter into a partnership agreement and go ahead and do it. You do not take the great idea that somebody has come up with on their own volition, and by their own effort come forward and presented, and then turn around and steal that individual's idea and say to others: "Oh, this is a grand idea that so and so has come up with. Now will you attempt to take his idea?" This was a situation where, as I've said, there was an unsolicited approach to start with. There was then a period of contractual discussion, of trying to make the product fit what we felt was a reasonable cost. There was much negotiation, and, at the end of that process, we had a partnership agreement. We're going to get out of it a product of extreme high value that will benefit all the school children of British Columbia.
L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister would use the same analogy if there was a school for sale and one individual came along and said: "I want to buy that school." Would you sell it to that particular individual or would you advertise more widely? I suggest not.
On the grants in the ministry for administration support services and for the education programs and evaluations, were any of these grants given to the BCTF or any other educational organization?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there will be contracts for the delivery of in-services, and those contracts or grants will go to a variety of partner groups, such as the superintendents, the trustees, the principals and vice-principals, and the BCTF.
L. Stephens: Are these grants primarily for in-service training? What specifically would they include?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funds are all related directly or indirectly to in-servicing. They may involve teaching teachers to become teachers of teachers, for example. We have a 1-800 line on certain inquiries, and in-servicing generally on the new curriculum. The deputy minister has just said that there are elements of special ed in there as well.
L. Stephens: Teacher development. Are these grants and contributions included in this area, or are they accounted for in another area of your budget?
[4:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You've asked about professional development. Yes, the $11.7 million that's in the block relates to in-servicing costs for professional development. The additional $5 million that we are taking out of various budgets in the ministry in order to use for in-servicing will be for the same program. Some of that spent will be spent in in-services organized through districts and the BCTF for professional development days. Others are being offered over the summer, for example, in cooperation with various post-secondary institutions.
C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, going back to the Rick Hansen thing again, my understanding of a partnership is that two parties agree to invest something and put out a mutual product. That's not what I hear you saying. It seems to me that the department has invested money and you've bought a service. You didn't have a partnership, because a partnership's got to be an equal investment from both sides. You put up the money, and he put up the talent.
I am not in any way questioning the ability or the talent of what you bought. I'm asking you two questions. One is how do you know you paid the best price, and two, do you have any other projects like that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, in answer to your last question, no, there are no other projects like that. Second, it is a partnership because it's not just the time and talent that Mr. Hansen and members of his organization are putting in, but it is the time and talent of ministry staff, of educators, that are being put in. The product, in this case, is not something that in a normal partnership one invests in in order to sell something, in order to make money. The product, in this sense, is the kits that will now be distributed to the 1,700 schools around British Columbia for the betterment of children.
C. Tanner: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard the minister say that the department's investing something like $460,000. Who is the recipient of all those funds -- the company and the personnel within Mr. Hansen's organization? Did the department get anything back? They got a product, but did they get any money back? Did Mr. Hansen put any money into the project, or did the department put all the money in the project?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have mentioned that some of the cost of this, which was in the $460,000 or $470,000 range, may come back in through other corporate sponsors, the details of which I cannot get into at this point in time. There's some confidentiality involved. Eventually, it will all come out.
No, Mr. Hansen doesn't put money back into it. These are funds flowing from the ministry that, along with certain efforts made by the ministry, together with the efforts of Mr. Hansen and his organization, are producing some kits related to the career and personal planning program. Are they quality for money? Absolutely.
L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a bit about the career and personal planning that's being implemented in the graduation program for the year '95-96. I have had a number of letters on this one -- and I'm sure the minister has as well -- and I've had a number of phone calls and faxes. There seems to be
[ Page 13688 ]
some confusion or unease by a significant number of parents around this career and personal planning curriculum. There seems to be no definition of process. Some of the questions have to do.... Specifically "values" is used frequently throughout this course. What I get asked is: "How is values defined, and who defines it? How will students examine their strengths? What criteria will be used?"
I have the learning outcomes for the planning process here. Can the minister elaborate a bit on this particular career and personal planning program and answer some of those questions. Who's going to be teaching it? How is it going to be taught? What kind of resource materials are available for teachers, and are they available to parents? Those are the kinds of issues.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I was going to first obtain a copy of the integrated resource package for career and personal planning so you could have it in front of you. That, in itself, may answer some of your questions.
The enormous value, from my point of view, of the career and personal planning is to involve students -- to bring them into the plans or to help them create and then update not just their learning plan but their career plan, to get them thinking about what the next steps in their lives are.
It is through that greater sense of involvement that they would then hope to have instilled in the student a greater sense of the relevance of what they are taking in the school and how that will tie into their future plans -- whether it's to go directly to work or whether it's to go on for post-secondary; whether it's to go academic or whether it's to go into an apprenticeship.
I have attended forums where 250 to 300 teachers, principals, vice-principals and superintendents were gathering to discuss the implementation of it. The meeting place was simply vibrating with excitement. They thought that something like this was long overdue, as does the B.C. Federation of Labour, as does the Business Council of B.C. It is to draw out and involve young people in the education process and in the rest of their lives.
I'm not certain what the member's asking with respect to values. I wonder if she could expand on her query or rephrase it, and then perhaps I would be able to answer the question.
L. Stephens: I am trying to find it here. One of the areas talks about values and clarification around substance abuse, for instance; that is what comes to mind. I can't find it right now in here, but that is one of the issues that has been brought to my attention.
The questions are not so much that students need to be helped and taught healthy lifestyles and how to make appropriate choices, or that they need to be made aware of the kinds of lifestyles available that they may want to follow. I think many parents view this as being the responsibility of the parents. We understand, however, that there are many parents who don't have the necessary life skills to be good role models for their children. We all recognize that, and I'm sure this is why this particular program has been implemented in the schools.
Having said that, there is concern about how this particular program is going to be taught, what kinds of resource materials are going to be used to teach it and in what context some of these programs will be taught. My question is whether the classes are available for parents to sit in on so they can monitor them. Would the minister commit to that? Would parents be free to attend any of these classes in career and personal planning and to take an active role in their child's selection of classes and courses and so on? Would career and personal planning be one of those parts of the curriculum in which parents are encouraged to participate?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Career and personal planning is a course that is going to be taught in the same way that literature, science or math are being taught. It is the choice of the professional educator whether anyone other than the students or the administrative officers of the school participates in the class in any way, shape or form. I will continue to leave that choice of the delivery of the material, the teaching strategies and everything else to the teacher, because that is part of the role of the professional. It is the system's responsibility to inform parents as to the nature of materials that will be discussed, and if there is parental objection to some portions of the content, their child can be excused from that portion.
L. Stephens: I appreciate that the minister has made the learning resource package available. I would ask him if there is reference made in that resource package to involving parents and making sure that parents are contacted and consulted about this particular program. Is that something that is viewed as desirable from the ministry's point of view?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All partner groups have been consulted across the complete range of educational reform that is occurring. There has been consultation on all the new curricula coming out: on the content of that curricula and on the relevance of that curricula. Has there been consultation to the detail of whether such and such a thing can be said or not said in the classroom? No. In a society as large and diverse as ours, you cannot have every parent agree to everything that is in every curriculum.
[5:00]
There may well be some aspects of career and personal planning that relate to sex education, for example, where a parent may object. If they object to it, their child can be excused for that portion. I think, however, that the hon. member made the point herself that there are many parents who do not have the background and the wherewithal to deliver to their children the kind of information that every young man or women should know. It's a dangerous world out there, and I believe that we, as a system, have a duty and a responsibility to all the children to make the very best effort we can -- not to instill in them a particular set of moral values, but rather, in a secular way, to inform and to make sure that children understand what choices there are to be made and the consequences that can go with some of those choices.
L. Stephens: I appreciate the minister's remarks, and I would simply say that the resource packages available to the teachers in the schools would, in my view, help if in fact they address the issues that the minister was referring to. At the same time, I think that bringing parents into the school itself would help alleviate concerns that many of them have around this issue; this would be beneficial, perhaps, to the implementation of the program in an orderly fashion.
Again, I would simply say that I believe it would be advantageous to the system as a whole for the awareness and
[ Page 13689 ]
knowledge around this particular program to be as widely dispersed as possible.
According to my figures here, the grants for student services are $6,735,768. Who receives these contributions or grants around student services, and what are they for?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The detailed information on the breakdown is being obtained. But first I want to confirm that you now have received the copy of the IRP for career and personal planning. It was my understanding that staff was going to deliver many of them.
L. Stephens: Yes.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Okay.
I take your point with respect to parental involvement very seriously. If you take a look, when you have the opportunity, at page 11 on planning your program, there is a complete section on parental involvement. We state explicitly that "the family is the primary educator in the development of children's attitudes and values. The school plays a supportive role...."
It is also pointed out that "it is important that parents be kept informed about all aspects of the program through their involvement in exchanging information, attending orientation meetings and workshops, participating in lesson activities, reinforcing and supporting the goals." Then there is another complete section on so-called sensitive content, which allows the parents, having been duly informed, if they wish to.... Well, first of all, it explores alternatives for allowing parents to share the responsibility for student attainment and also allowing the parents to have the child opt out of certain elements. So there's a great deal of information provided to all teachers of this course and every other course to make sure that they understand that.
The grants that you made inquiries into cover a variety of items, and I can provide you with the details of special education and operation of the provincial resource centre for the visually impaired. There is summer institute training for special ed. There is social equity. There are language immersion grants. There's a Japanese language immersion program for B.C. students. There are aboriginal education grants for the development and implementation of locally relevant first nations language and culture curriculum materials. There are French language grants that relate to six or eight items having to do with either a program....
I'm just looking down at curriculum development. It's a long list, and I think it would be better to provide you with a copy of it so you can look through it and look for individual topics of interest.
L. Fox: I have a number of questions around the new career and personal planning curriculum, as well. If I could have the same consideration in achieving a copy of the curriculum, I would appreciate it. I have a few basic questions, and then I would reserve the right to come back, once I've received that copy and scanned it for my own personal information, and ask a number of questions on it. The first question I would ask is how this curriculum was developed. What input, what process was there for parental involvement, other than the pilot?
I understand that the pilot is going on in three districts, and the parents, from the input I've received, are frustrated in those three districts. At least a number of them are; I'm not suggesting they all are. But they've been unable to achieve satisfactory answers, in their view. How was the curriculum developed and through the process, what kind of involvement, if any, did the parents have?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: From the time I announced the final draft of the new intermediate and graduate programs in December 1993, there has been wide consultation. We held business-labour-educator forums in about 20 locations around the province. Those were widely attended by parents. The one which I attended for a while, and spoke to, happened to be in Kamloops. At each table -- and there were dozens and dozens of tables -- there was an educator, a parent, a student, a labour leader and a business leader, all pouring over what the new directions in curriculum were, including career and personal planning. We had involvement from the parent advisory councils up through to the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.
In the fall of 1993 we circulated widely throughout the province the final draft of the intermediate and graduation program and invited the response of the public. We had some 16,000 responses from the public and teachers, from all partner groups. So there has been extensive consultation. In addition to all that, part of the content of career and personal planning is from the existing "Learning for Living" curriculum and that, in turn, had very wide consultation when it was first established. So there has been extensive, far-ranging consultation on this curriculum.
L. Fox: Was there any contact with ministerial groups in connection with the personal planning curriculum of this initiative?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could I seek a clarification of what you mean by "ministerial"?
L. Fox: Primarily clergy and the church ministerial group.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there was no explicit effort. Among the 16,000, there could have been responses from clergypersons of a variety of faiths, and parent advisory councils or trustee associations could also have been involved. But we did not set out to contact clergy of all denominations in order to obtain their input on this.
L. Fox: When we're approaching issues such as a variety of models for family orientation, health products and services, issues that would be sensitive for all British Columbians, you would think a very important part of that process might be to make the churches aware of this kind of planning and of this type of curriculum. I resisted going back to your opening statements, because I was late into the game to get into my response, but perhaps some time later in the estimates I will. When you look at the initiatives around the province that are trying to create traditional schools, charter schools, much of the rationale for doing that is because of the perceived social engineering that's happening within the public system. If the minister wants to be true in his efforts to meet the public's needs within the public school system, it seems to me that we have an obligation to involve all values of British Columbia and make sure that they're aware of agendas such as this one.
I'm concerned when I hear the minister say that students will have the opportunity to opt out of a program. My experi-
[ Page 13690 ]
ence in being a trustee, as well as when I was a student, is that the peer pressure is such that it makes it very difficult for a student to opt out. I'm very, very concerned about the approach. I will leave it at this point until I get a chance, because all I have before me are notes sent by individuals on the curriculum. I look forward, if I can get that curriculum sometime today, to perusing it over the night and making sure that I can have the pertinent questions for you tomorrow.
[5:15]
C. Tanner: Could I go back again to the Hansen contract? I'm intrigued, Mr. Minister. Why, when you're allocating a half-million dollar contract going out of public funds, wouldn't you put it up for tender? Could you tell me, first of all, is the contract with an individual or with a company? Could you also tell me, is the minister prepared to table that contract in this committee? Thirdly, would the minister be able to give us an example of the product that's being produced from this contract?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The contract is with Rick Hansen and Associates, which is a limited liability corporation. The contract is public, or can be made public. The details of it.... This is just a technical matter -- we can continue this discussion -- but it was part of the 1994-95 and will be available through Public Accounts Committee as well as this discussion. Again, it comes back to: services may be contracted out. But if there is an instance where it is deemed that there is a sole supplier of sufficient quality and a contract is worked out that the minister satisfies himself will be value for money, then it can be done. It just, simply, is done. This is one instance where we have a sole supplier who is eminently qualified to deliver a highly unique product, and it was not tendered. I do not have a problem with that.
D. Schreck: I would like to thank the minister for meeting recently with representatives of the budget committee of School District 44. The budget committee of School District 44 is a committee representing all of the interests in North Vancouver. Parents, teachers, the president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association, the chair of the school board and another trustee, the administrators, the superintendent, and a representative of CUPE were all present. I believe the opposition Education critic also met on occasion with this committee.
I wish to revisit some of these issues here, because as much as I appreciate the minister's time at that meeting, the benefit of revisiting some of those issues here is that all of the residents of North Vancouver have the opportunity to review this record and see where the ministry is going on the issue of education funding for North Vancouver.
It was the case about five years ago that the former Social Credit government decided to fundamentally change the method in which education is funded in this province. At that time, the power for local school boards to tax -- to make up the difference between their priorities and priorities that may be reflected in funding by the ministry -- was removed from the school districts. I have done some considerable work canvassing my own constituents, and I have to report that I would be hard-pressed to find as many as 5 percent, probably considerably less than 5 percent, who would support returning taxation power to local school boards. The overwhelming majority of my constituents told me in no uncertain terms that local taxation powers should not be returned.
Furthermore, on reflection of the period immediately following the change....
The Chair: I recognize the hon. Member for Saanich North and the Islands. Your point of order, sir?
C. Tanner: The point of order, Madam Chairman, is the fact that I don't see how this is at all pertinent or relevant to the conversation on the minister's budget.
The Chair: Would the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale please tie his remarks to the budget discussion.
D. Schreck: Perhaps the hon. member might like to review the standing orders and realize that there are 75 members in this Legislature, and we all have the opportunity to represent our constituents. I intend to stand here and do precisely that since the opposition does not adequately represent my constituents and my riding on any matter. Half of my workload is made up of representing people in opposition-held ridings throughout the North Shore because they constantly come to me being underserviced by that official opposition, whether it's on housing or education issues.
I was saying that under the former government there is a fundamental change in the way education is funded, and there is....
C. Tanner: The Chair instructed the member to tell this committee how his remarks refer to the debate in hand. I still don't see what he's talking about. It has nothing to do with the minister's budget.
D. Schreck: Judging by the quality of the debate I've heard coming from the opposition critics, it's no wonder they can't understand. But if they would be patient and understand that the rules allow me 15 uninterrupted minutes, perhaps we can get through the discussion, which I think is very important to the constituents of North Vancouver, in which over half -- in fact, the majority -- of the letters directed to me have come from the ridings held by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour or the riding held by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
The Chair: There's not much point pursuing this particular debate further. I understand that it has always been the practice in this House to have and allow fairly wide-ranging debates on estimates, as long as they are tied clearly to budget estimates and budget ideas, not necessarily specifically on the very last topic that was necessarily under discussion. That is what is happening here, and while it may not tie in directly to the very last topic that was under discussion, clearly it is a budgetary matter, and budget items are a part of what the ministry -- and this ministry, in this situation -- is all about.
D. Schreck: With the dismal record of this opposition, I can see why they would attempt to shut down a member's right to participate....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! Let's take a few moments longer.... The Chair has ruled on this issue. Thank you, hon. members,
[ Page 13691 ]
for your input. The ruling is that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale has the floor.
C. Tanner: Madam Chair, I have a point of order, please.
The Chair: What is your point of order?
C. Tanner: It is that this member, besides not staying on the subject, is maligning other members of the House when they are not here to defend themselves. I don't have to do that, either. If he would keep to the subject and leave other members out of it, then perhaps we could get on with the subject at hand.
The Chair: Thank you for your point of order, and my ruling is that I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
D. Schreck: I can understand, given the dismal performance of this opposition, why they would attempt to shut down the attempt to represent the interests of my constituents. But I receive letters from constituents throughout the North Shore saying that they are concerned about education funding. I thank the minister for meeting with parents, CUPE representatives, teacher representatives, administrators, the superintendent and the trustees to address these concerns.
What I am doing is setting the historical framework of these concerns, because it is particularly important to understand that the problems we face for education funding in North Vancouver have their genesis in a decision made by a Social Credit government some five years ago. It is particularly important to understand the reaction by all the significant players to those decisions, to understand what options are feasible and acceptable today.
I stated earlier that it is clearly not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of my constituents to restore the ability of school boards to have local taxation. I was about to state, when interrupted by numerous points of order, that the relative silence on the notion of block funding also indicated general acceptance by my constituents of the notion of the change to a uniform and fair system of education funding throughout the province.
But as the minister and members are aware, we have gone through some transition periods and a change in assessing what is a fair block. There is one element of that block remaining outstanding under what was called the technical distribution report. The technical distribution report recommended that North Vancouver School District 44 receive approximately $1.5 million more than they are receiving now. That would amount to about 1 or 2 percent of their total budget. It's important to keep that percentage in mind, because some would have us believe that that decision is of a much larger order of magnitude in terms of its consequences for decision-making within North Vancouver. Nevertheless, as anyone can understand, when one is making tough decisions at the margin, 1 to 2 percent can be a very important amount.
What I would like the minister to answer -- for the record in Hansard -- is when we might expect to have this matter resolved. In particular, I want the minister to understand, for the record, that as far as this member is concerned, I raised this issue last year in estimates; I said then that I believe it's the responsibility of the ministry either to refute the technical distribution report and establish that the school district is not legitimately entitled to that money or, much preferably, to come across and provide the money.
Given that the school district has suffered for a period of some three years under the uncertainty of whether it is to receive this entitlement or not, it is my view that once the issue is resolved and it is determined that some amount of moneys are owing North Vancouver School District, that establishes an entitlement for that period of uncertainty. The accumulated deficits over that period should also be addressed.
I'd like the minister to please comment on both the time frame for resolving this uncertainty and the matter of accumulated deficits which have resulted due to the inability of the ministry to provide a quick answer and become engaged in the process.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The situation in North Vancouver School Board is much the way that the member has outlined. When the technical distribution group reported out a year and a half ago, it recommended that there be a reallocation of funding within the system -- some taken from some boards and delivered to others. The trustees in various districts across the province raised quite a hue and cry about that report, indicating that it was deeply flawed. They registered in no uncertain terms their objections to having the recommendations of the technical distribution group report acted upon. I agreed, at that time, to set it aside pending further consultation. In the meantime, we have proceeded with implementing the new funding formula, which has been broadly well-received as a fair and equitable distribution, but some outstanding issues remain. There are certain small-district issues and large-district issues; there are certain growth-district issues. There are certain operations and maintenance issues that the technical distribution group had looked at, but as I've said, the recommendations were not acted upon.
I will be having my ministry personnel carry out consultations on all the remaining issues related to inequity within the distribution system. Those consultations will be occurring over the next six months, in time for me to announce the second step of the new funding formula late next fall. The first one having been accomplished, the second will now take into consideration all the other outstanding issues where there are disputes between districts.
[5:30]
If the people on the school board in North Vancouver are correct in their analysis, then I urge you to urge them to make those arguments. Urge them to delve into the background of the operations and maintenance factors and to present those arguments to the ministry in as strong a way as they can. I will certainly recognize their arguments, along with the arguments I'm sure I will hear from many other districts. I will make a decision with respect to redistribution and other matters late this fall.
With respect to your issue, and having corrected that to the satisfaction of almost all, will there then be a retroactive element to North Vancouver or to any other district? Probably not, but I appreciate the sentiment. I appreciate the nature of the request, but I don't believe that the funding available will permit that.
Noting the time on the clock, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]