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)
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 20, Number 25
[ Page 15303 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased today to make a number of introductions, but first of all I want to introduce Mr. Allan Duplissie and his wife, Georgina, who are here with us in the House today. I'd like to give special thanks to Allan Duplissie for his longstanding advocacy for victims of crime. Mr. Duplissie has worked for over 29 years to promote victims' rights in British Columbia.
Also with Mr. Duplessie and his wife in the gallery are a large number of people whom I would like to identify, and I'd like to briefly explain why they're here. Members should welcome Chuck and Dona Cadman, parents of a murder victim and founders of CRY; Rosalea Turcotte, also the mother of a murder victim; Priscilla de Villiers, national representative for CAVEAT; Dianne Sowden, advocate for protecting teenage prostitutes; Cleone Ratcliffe, victims' rights advocate; Keith Kemp, advocate of change to criminal injury compensation; Doreen Bonneau and June Quipp, advocates of victims' issues as they relate to aboriginal people; Lorna Motz and Laura Snape, mother and sister of a murder victim; Judy Winnig and Margaret Hunter, aunt and great-grandmother of a murder victim; Merve and Marlene Duggan, parents of a murder victim; Jacqueline Kimberley from Mission, B.C., wife of a murder victim; Michael Manning, from Montreal, father of a murder victim; Jennie Ousten, specialized victims' services, from Prince George; Tracy Porteous, B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance Programs; Scott Vallance, B.C. Association of Police-Affiliated Victim-Witness Services; Inspector George Lensen, RCMP officer responsible for community policing and victims' services; and Joanne McCabe-Merritt from the RCMP. I also want to acknowledge Chris Simmonds, B.C. chair of CAVEAT, for his contribution. Chris was unable to be with the group in the House today.
There may well be additional visitors whom I have not included, and if so, I apologize to them. I would like members of the House to make this group of British Columbia citizens welcome on this very special day.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery today are three very special people. My aunt Harjit Dhillon and my uncle Manjit Dhillon are the two individuals I joined when I immigrated to Canada in 1968, and they were the ones who introduced me to the party which I now represent in this House. I'm also delighted that accompanying them is a pioneer of the Indo-Canadian community, Bishan Singh Aujla, who has been in Canada for several decades and has made a great deal of contribution to improvements in the community. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Krog: In the gallery today I notice one of my constituents, who has just finished a term as the president of the Society of Organized Services -- a wonderful organization in the Parksville-Qualicum area -- Mr. John House. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would ask the House to welcome two very good friends of mine, Margaret Scott and her son Graeme, who are here today to join us for our deliberations. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Garden: In the House up in the gallery is a very special little person I'd like you all to welcome. He's the newest member of the Garden clan. My newest grandson is 18 days old, and his name is Ryan David Garden. He's accompanied by my youngest son, Roy Garden, and his wife, Vicki. Would you all please make them welcome.
CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I would just like to briefly introduce Bill 38, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995. This bill -- along with another message I'll make in a moment -- and strategies to enforce restraining orders more effectively form an extensive victims' initiative and demonstrate this government's commitment to assisting victims of crime. The criminal injury compensation program provides assistance such as grief counselling, lost wages and other expenses to individuals who are criminally injured. This bill provides two new groups with benefits under the act: parents and families of murder victims and those who have suffered criminal injury while on the job.
The first amendment recognizes that parents and families of murder victims are themselves victims of crime and that parents in particular suffer a tremendous loss when their child is murdered. The second amendment adds pain and suffering awards to individuals criminally injured on the job who receive all but pain and suffering benefits under the Workers Compensation Act and the Government Employees Compensation Act of Canada.
Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Victims of Crime Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act. This is a bill that recognizes the role of victims in the criminal justice process. In introducing the Victims of Crime Act, amendments to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and a central registry of protection orders, government is announcing a new era in the justice system's response to victims of crime.
British Columbians are concerned about the impact of crime on individuals and their families. Whether the offence is a crime against their property or a violent act against their person, many victims and victim supporters have stressed the need for legislation to validate the role of victims in the justice system. All too often victims feel revictimized by the justice
[ Page 15304 ]
system. This legislation is intended to ensure that victims are fairly served and to make the justice system more accessible and understandable to victims.
The core provisions of this bill give victims extensive rights to information about the status of their case as well as the status of the person charged with, or convicted of, an offence. The act also provides victims with the right to support in defending their privacy in the courtroom and in presenting the impact of the offence to the court. Other key provisions in the act include a statement of government's future direction with respect to victim services and the establishment of a victim fine surcharge and dedicated fund for victims' initiatives.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many dedicated individuals and organizations that have inspired this legislative initiative. Victims and their families, victim-serving agencies and victims' advocacy groups have worked consistently to promote victims' rights for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[2:15]
USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
G. Campbell: In August 1990 the Premier condemned the Social Credit government for "hiding behind the facade of government and using tax money to pay for their re-election campaign." We have now learned through a confidential memo that "communications material" of a more partisan nature is being paid for by B.C. taxpayers to pay for the NDP's re-election bid. The NDP's provincial secretary has told the Premier's chief of staff that he must establish an integrated campaign between the party and the government. Mr. Speaker, the document shows an unprecedented use of B.C. taxpayers for political purposes.
The Speaker: The question, please.
G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell us: did he actually believe what he said in 1990 or was he simply trying to mislead the people of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, there is a memo. It's not a confidential memo; it's obviously a memo that says the New Democratic Party is preparing for an election. To say that a memo from the top political official in a political party is a political document is really an astonishing revelation, hon. Speaker.
New Democrats in this province are proud of their record. Look at the plan and the announcements I've made in the last month: 100 new jobs at Dynapro Systems and Quinsam Coal, and a partnership of over $100 million in new computers and computer training for our young people in the high school system. The $230 million going into the schools is all part of the plan, and that's a plan for ordinary working people instead of the friends of Howe Street over there on the other side.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The only astonishing thing is the moral barometer of this Premier. Since 1990 the only thing that's changed is that we used to have a Premier who lived in Fantasy Gardens, and now we have a Premier who lives in a fantasy world if he thinks he can use the B.C. taxpayers' dollars to re-elect him.
We have two request-for-proposal advertising contracts that this government has put out and that just coincidentally happened to fall directly under Mr. Gardiner's directions to the Premier's chief of staff. It just falls right into the government's election strategy. Can the Premier tell us why anyone in British Columbia should believe him after he condemned the Social Credit government and is now going to abuse B.C. taxpayers to the extent of $5 million to try and cover up his government's ineffectual governance and tax-borrow-and-spend policies that have left every average British Columbia family with reduced incomes? When will the Premier stand up and say to the people of British Columbia that it's time for an election? Instead of using their tax dollars, let's call the election now.
Hon. M. Harcourt: When you look at the fact that this government has a balanced budget a year ahead of time, that this government has the highest credit rating in Canada bar none, that this government has been part of a province that has produced over 200,000 new jobs in the last three and a half years and has brought down real per capita spending three years in a row, that's a record that we are very proud of. We don't have to hold our meetings at Atlas Travel or other places like that. We're proud of the fact that we meet with ordinary working people in this province. Our plan is for the ordinary working people of this province, not for Howe Street or Vander Zalm supporters, like the third party is supporting.
W. Hurd: The Gardiner memo clearly states that communications material of a "more partisan nature is being developed around the planned theme, 'Investing in Our Future'." It's right there: a clear, strategic link between the government's "Investing in Our Future" puff piece and the NDP partisan campaign to follow. The Premier still hasn't answered the question: why is the NDP government using tax dollars for re-election purposes in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: You know, it's truly ironic that this government is making sure our young people have schools to learn in, in spite of the Liberal Party. We're building new schools in Richmond, in Langley and in other ridings that have Liberal MLAs, in spite of the fact that they would vote against those very funds being used to house our young people.
I can tell you that I don't need taxpayers' money to say what our plan is. I've just outlined it. We have a plan that's been put together by thousands of British Columbians to invest in people, our natural resources and infrastructure, so we can have a growing future and we can have jobs now and into the future. They know the opposition's plan is to slash services, cut living standards and regress.
The Speaker: The member has a supplemental question?
W. Hurd: Clearly the Premier doesn't get it. The NDP's fundraising arm in Nanaimo was convicted of embezzling
[ Page 15305 ]
money from charities in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. Now he's basically admitted that public money has been misappropriated for crass re-election purposes. Will the Premier today call an election, since his government is already $5 million into the re-election trough, using public money in the province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer to the question is yes, I will call an election. I think it is going to be a very important election. I can tell you that the members of the government are looking forward to fighting that election campaign, because....
Yes, that's right. I just saw the House Leader for the official opposition go like this. That's where the Liberal support went in Manitoba and in Ontario, and that's where it's going here in British Columbia. The House Leader of the Liberal Party, the official opposition, knows that when pilots see this happening, they know they've got a crash landing. That's what the Liberals can see out in front of them.
Do you know why? It's because the people of British Columbia know what the Leader of the Opposition stands for: tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy, mining in parks, cutting the minimum wage and workplace standards, cutting environmental standards and slashing services to British Columbians. That's just the start of their scary platform for working people, and that's why we're looking forward to an election.
PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO PHOTO RADAR
L. Fox: Speaking about the Ontario election, I'm sure that it should have sent a clear message to this government. My question is to the Attorney General. This government, because of the result of the Ontario election, should have got a clear message to abandon its approach on photo radar. Drivers don't like them, they don't want them and they see them as an unreal invasion of privacy. Has this government got the message, or is it still intent on putting the radar cameras in place?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible, who isn't here today.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.
USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. The government has just spent more than $500,000 on a nice little booklet entitled "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the taxpayers are shocked to find out that they are investing in the future of the NDP, and that the plan they were talking about was a re-election plan for the governing party. My question is to the Premier: why would British Columbians re-elect a Premier who was found guilty by the auditor general of disguising advertising contracts with Karl Struble, and who has now been exposed as authorizing millions of dollars in public funds to be spent on a partisan re-election plan by the NDP?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not even going to ask the hon. member to withdraw that disgusting comment. This is how power-hungry the Liberals are: they take a finding of the auditor general, who totally cleared and exonerated me from any wrongdoing or knowledge whatsoever....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: He takes that finding and twists it into a sleazy comment in this Legislature that attacks my integrity. I'm going to let that stand on the record, because I want the people of British Columbia to know the scary bunch that's over there in the opposition, and that they're prepared to do anything and say anything to get into power. They want power for power's sake, not to take that -- as he said -- "nice little booklet...."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: He has made one small step forward; at least he has acknowledged it's a nice little booklet. Now he should read it and see why the people of British Columbia are excited about that plan.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The people were excited about another little booklet the Premier put out, which was 48 points, and they broke every single one of those promises. Why should this be any different? The NDP has been cut off from bingo ripoff revenues, and now they're going after the taxpayers for their election funds. The government has introduced a bill before the House which would curtail all expenditures by political parties and slash budgets for third-party advertising. Doesn't the Premier believe it to be even mildly hypocritical that his government would curtail the rights of others while he has secretly contracted for a partisan NDP re-election campaign paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia?
The Speaker: Clearly, the hon. member's question relates to a matter which is before the House and would, on its own, stand out of order.
PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO PHOTO RADAR
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. The government wants to waste millions of dollars to buy photo radars and train the police how to use them. Will the Premier at least agree to defer the implementation of this decision until after the next general election? Will he allow all British Columbians to debate the issue in an election campaign before one more cent is spent on photo radars?
[ Page 15306 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought that issue was taken on notice by the Attorney General for the minister responsible for ICBC, and that is the Minister of Transportation of Highways. I'll take that one on notice for the appropriate minister.
The Speaker: The member has a different question?
R. Neufeld: Further, to the Premier, our caucus is adamantly opposed to photo radars. If they are introduced, we are going to get rid of them just as soon as we get elected as the next government. Why doesn't the government spare taxpayers the unnecessary expense of buying photo radars until they've had their say at the ballot box? It is fully within the Premier's bailiwick to answer to the public about elections.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is rephrasing the same question. I would also remind all hon. members that questions should not be disguised so as to make statements and speeches.
[2:30]
USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
F. Gingell: The May 31 memo from political commissar Brian Gardiner to chief of staff John Walsh says: "Taxpayer funds, seeing that you have none of your own, must be used in a desperate attempt to pull your party from the basement of public opinion." In view of the Premier's statements in opposition about the immorality of using taxpayers' funds for partisan political purposes, does the Premier admit that it now appears that his party's morals are as bankrupt as his party's treasury?
Hon. M. Harcourt: These parries back and forth are amusing and interesting, but the people of British Columbia know what's at stake in this province. They know that this government is going to very clearly be there to protect medicare from the Liberals in Ottawa and the right-wing parties here in British Columbia. We're going to make sure that British Columbians have jobs now -- and well into the future -- as part of a healthy economy, instead of the downward economy that the two Reform parties in this House want to see. There's a very clear choice.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to present the 1992-93 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services.
PLACEMENT OF USED GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I rise to answer a question taken on notice in question period on May 29. On May 29, 1995, the member for Prince George-Omineca told the House that thousands of used government computers are sold each year for a fraction of their worth, and suggested that they should be used in school classrooms instead.
The fact is that less than 50 working computers were sold at public sales and auctions by the Purchasing Commission's warehousing and asset investment recovery branch last year -- not thousands of computers, but less then 50. Those used computers were sold for between $525 and $850 each, but only after we had invested the time of computer technicians and taken parts from other used computers to get them working.
Government ministries make the most of their investment in computers. When an employee needs a faster computer with a larger memory to do a job, the used computer is reallocated internally to someone else who can use it. When an older computer stops working, it is often used as a source of parts to repair other computers. This is a prudent and cost-effective practice. When used computers are finally declared surplus, they are usually not working and frequently missing parts, and the school system would not thank us for giving these computers to them.
Putting used computers in school classrooms is an extremely good idea, and the Purchasing Commission has been working since last fall on a pilot project with the Ministry of Education. Some working Macintosh computers from the Ministry of Women's Equality may also be used for this purpose.
R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, 575 residents of Kamloops have asked me to present a petition to the House, and I'll read briefly their petition:
"Whereas the Ministry of Social Services' operational directive No. 39-1994-95 removes restrictions on infant adoptions and promotes new adoption eligibility rules that would allow same-sex partners to adopt infants; and...whereas the Ministry of Social Services statistics show that there already exist many unfilled adoption applications from traditional families; and whereas this policy revision raises a moral question that warrants full and open debate in the Legislature, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House rescind operational directive No. 39-1994-95 and ensure that any further amendments to the Adoption Act receive public debate in the Legislative Assembly."
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I call the wrap-up of the Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
L. Hanson: We did have some lengthy debates and some very interesting information forthcoming from the minister with respect to the new rent control programs. We expressed a number of concerns that people have made us aware of in the application and administration of the program, and the minister gave us some insight as to what she sees as the future of rent controls and some new appeal processes that she is putting in place.
I think, generally speaking, it was a reasonable discussion and a reasonable approach to analysis of the estimates. I would like to thank the minister for her clarity, even though I
[ Page 15307 ]
may not have agreed with many of the statements that are the government's policy. With that, I'd like to thank the minister for the clarity and the time spent. Certainly it will be beneficial as people read Hansard to see what the ministry's future and policies are.
V. Anderson: Yes, we did have an interesting time in the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. I must say that the minister is certainly devoted to this ministry. She takes great pride in her concern for and dedication to developing what was a new ministry when she took it over, and I commend her for her diligence in that regard.
I appreciate her conviction. She has gone out and tried to involve the community; she has gone out and tried to involve the municipal partners in developing new opportunities for low-income housing particularly. But it's difficult to see the forest for the trees sometimes. One of the most heated discussions we got into was when we pointed out that the ministry had increased the budget by $2.5 million, in effect, even though they had cut down the amount of money on administration, which we can appreciate. This is $2.5 million that went out into the community in a variety of ways: $1 million in the housing operation and $1 million-plus in consumer services. The minister has also attempted to do a great deal more in the area of promoting cooperatives and credit union activities within the province, and we acknowledge that.
But the most heated part of our discussion came when we asked where the borrowed money was coming from -- the money that was coming through B.C. 21 -- the source of that money, and the manner of repayment of it. That was one answer we did not get, although we got a heated response, nevertheless, about other matters. So it was an interesting but short discussion. When I checked with the persons who are our critics for Recreation and Consumer Services they said simply that there wasn't a great deal to report.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me recap some of the highlights of last year's work and flag some of our initiatives for the year coming.
I appreciate the references from the critics of the two opposition parties to the pride that we have in our ministry, because I believe that as a small ministry we have made great accomplishments both in bringing fairness to the marketplace and in developing a housing strategy and implementing it on the ground, at a time when all governments are looking at the resources that they have and making those resources work harder and more efficiently.
Let me start by highlighting our workplace partnership programs with ministry management and union employees. Through the initiatives with community seniors' advocates, we have looked at the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program and have eliminated 42 steps in the application process. That efficiency has not only made the workplace for Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters a more productive, efficient and pleasant place to work, but also has allowed us to serve the people in the community in a more expeditious and timely fashion. At a time when the federal Liberal government has withdrawn its commitment from social housing, our ministry has shown leadership in the past year by committing almost 1,000 units of social housing for this province, and enhancing and building on the partnerships that exist with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the municipal level of government and our housing partners in the non-profit and cooperative sector.
In addition to that, I want to focus a little bit of attention on our consumer services operations and bring to the House's attention that we have actually increased by 13 percent the number of investigations that this department has conducted over this year. At the same time, with the initiatives around direct sellers and the registration of direct sellers, we have accomplished a 20 percent reduction in complaints in that year. The people who work in our consumer services section of the ministry deserve a great deal of recognition and applause for the work that they have done with very limited resources. They have also sought and received some $800,000 in redress for some 791 consumers.
The debtor assistance branch in our ministry has seen an increase of approximately 25 percent, compared to last year, in the number of clients it has interviewed in this past year, and it has assisted some 2,200 British Columbians in meeting their financial obligations. What this means is that they have helped avoid approximately 1,300 court proceedings, and they have returned some $6 million in the past year to small businesses and creditors in the province.
There were a couple of concerns I had about the questions and comments that were brought to the debate by members of the House. I want to enter for the record some recent articles with regard to the leader of the Liberal Party that have been brought to my attention. It has been brought to my attention that the leader of the Liberal Party has made a firm commitment to the people of this province that at the first sitting of the House -- should they win the next election -- they will repeal the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. This fair legislation has tremendous support from landlords and tenants, and has brought stability to the rental market in this province. I'm sure that many tenants will be most interested to hear of that revelation and saddened by its shortsightedness.
Let me also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that during the estimates, the critic for the Liberal Party indicated that his government -- should they take power in the next election -- would seriously consider the role of B.C. Housing, and whether B.C. Housing should continue in the social housing market. I think they have forecast the same direction as the federal Liberals have taken Canada. This government has great concern that if there should be any change, their friends -- friends like Jim Moody -- would be given the task of assessing the real estate functions of B.C. Housing, and our commitment to social housing and supporting those who are most in need in this province. We have a great deal to be proud of. In this past year we have shown leadership not only across the retail market in the province but also in the housing market, by developing policy that has both stabilized and moved forward an initiative that is inclusive and gives people opportunities they would not have had otherwise.
[2:45]
Hon. G. Clark: There's been a very slight change in the agenda, and I apologize in advance to members, particularly those opposite. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, but the committee will not convene until 3:30 p.m. due to the unavoidable absence of the minister for a brief period of time. In the main House, I call Committee of Supply, Section B, to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
[ Page 15308 ]
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: I wasn't planning to interject in this discussion, but I see staff are just arriving, so I can't help but say how pleased I am to rise briefly in this estimates debate.
I think one of the principal challenges facing governments in Canada is the rising caseload of social assistance recipients, and the challenge that faces all of us is as we see the recoveries take place yet see a flattening out of the caseload, rather than a decline, which might have been the case just after the Second World War. That's a phenomenon consistent across Canada, regardless of jurisdiction and political party. It says something fundamental, I think, about the changing nature of the economy in the western world, particularly in Canada.
It says also that governments obviously need to look creatively at how we respond to these challenges. I'm very pleased to participate in these estimates, because I know that the minister, in particular, and the ministry have been working hard at coming to grips with this changing nature of the structure of the workforce and the challenges that face the traditional welfare system we have in British Columbia. The system we have was developed after the Second World War. It's consistent across the country. There were many programs which induced provinces to enter into such a system -- the Canada Assistance Plan being the main one, with federal support for funding.
Obviously that federal funding under the federal Liberals is being eliminated. That's forcing a re-examination of these policies. Regardless of whether funding continued, this administration in the last three and a half years has been re-examining the system very carefully. We need to, it seems to me, provide more incentives for people to work.
I'm pleased to see that under our administration we doubled the amount of money that recipients could earn before it was taxed away. We had a situation when we took office where the marginal tax rate for welfare recipients was 100 percent. So an individual who went out to work to get a minimum-wage job simply had it all taken away by the government. While that's still the case over a certain threshold, I'm pleased that the government moved to increase the allowable earnings for social assistance recipients before any of that money is clawed back.
For those members of the Reform Party and the Liberal Party who take a very reactionary position when it comes to welfare recipients, I do have a statistic which I'd just like to share with them. I think it demonstrates something profound, and that is this: when we doubled the earned exemption for those recipients on social assistance so they could make a very modest amount of money -- $100, I think, if you were a single employable -- and work, people said that that wouldn't cost any money, because we're simply allowing them to earn more money before they get it all taxed away, as they're on welfare.
What happened was that we saw a cost of $17 million to the provincial taxpayer by doing that. Why is that? It's because even at a 100 percent marginal tax rate, tens of thousands of welfare recipients were working. They were working even though it was 100 percent taxed away. So when we doubled the earned exemption it actually cost us money, because those people who were working before and being taxed away had money then put into their pockets.
That's very good public policy. It gives the right incentive to have people working when they're on welfare -- to give them an incentive to go and work. Even with a 100 percent marginal rate, many of them were doing that. That was a policy initiative by this government, which did cost us $17 million, because we were clawing it back. That $17 million went right into the pockets of those social assistance recipients who made the effort to get to work, in spite of the fact that it was 100 percent taxed away.
I can make a long speech, but I know that we have staff here, and the minister is here now. I just wanted to draw the attention of members opposite to that one small fact. That's one early step the government -- this administration -- took to encourage those on social assistance to work, and to reward those who found work, whereas in the past they were taxed away at 100 percent. More work has to be done in that regard -- no pun intended. I know there are a variety of initiatives underway that try to change those incentives around so there's an incentive for people to work, rather than an incentive for people to stay on social assistance rates as has been the case in the past. We need a reform of our welfare system. It's based on an industrial model after the Second World War, which really doesn't exist and doesn't deal with the fact that there are far more single individuals and single parents on social assistance. It doesn't deal with the fact that we have a rapidly changing workforce, a more dynamic workforce, with a churning at the bottom of people working at low-income jobs, who are going on welfare and then going back. It doesn't deal with the fact that there are very few nine-to-five jobs anymore, that the whole industrial sector upon which the existing system is based has changed. We need to change with it.
I'm very pleased to be part of an administration that's taking some significant steps in this regard. I know that the minister has been working hard for more exciting and dramatic changes which help save the taxpayer money -- but more importantly, provide appropriate support for those in need, because we believe in that, in a civilized society -- and which also provide the appropriate supports for those who want to work, which is the vast majority of those on social assistance today. They are employable individuals who want to work but who haven't got the tools or the ability to do so. I am pleased, and I know the minister has gone on at some length and will, over the next few days and weeks, discuss the very exciting changes that we have in mind to make the system more functional.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments of the minister and simply say to the Minister of Social Services and staff with her: welcome back. I would simply like to keep on in the process we were on last time, looking at the programs as they're presented in BC Guide as a format for us to do this. I believe we were at the parent mutual aid organizations. I would ask about the nature of that program, the number of staff involved and the amount of money involved in that particular program.
[ Page 15309 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Before we start, I would like to introduce Rick Crosby, the budget manager. He is here to replace the expertise we lost in Mr. Pickering, who I announced last time was retiring. We welcome Mr. Crosby to our debate.
We spend about $370,000 on parent mutual aid organizations, and we contract out those services.
V. Anderson: How many contracts would you have in that, and what particular kind of work are they doing? Are they spread throughout the province? What's the kind of area that they cover?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I've said before, it's difficult to discuss these in the context of the book that the hon. member is using, because our budget is organized in a much different fashion. This parent mutual aid, many of the.... For instance, parent training would be part of a family support services model that we use throughout the province. Other examples are Parents in Crisis, where we use parents together. These are mutual support organizations. They exist throughout the province and are very much self-motivated, with resource support from our ministry.
V. Anderson: It's difficult, then, for the public to know, because it's BC Guide that's available for the public to understand what the program is doing. In meeting with the ministry, we indicated we would be doing this and asked for their program presentation, which they have given us in previous years but did not supply to us this year. So this is the way that we can follow through on it.
The next one is parent training. How many people are involved in training, and what is the main focus of that parent training program? What's the cost of those involved?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is $5.9 million spent on that. It's where we assist people who need skills and training within their own home, within their own family model. That's offered through contracted services. There may also be situations where we could actually do parent training by group. There's Project Parent East, etc., in my own hometown -- your hometown as well. In 1994- 95 we spent almost $6 million on that.
V. Anderson: I have two questions that relate to that. Are all the parents who are receiving that training on GAIN or receiving Social Services benefits, or does this apply to other people as well? Would it be true to say that some of these people may be involved in multiple programs?
[3:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: This program is unrelated to GAIN. It's through family and children's services, family support services.
V. Anderson: Looking at the section on residential living arrangements for pregnant and young mothers, it says that it provides a residential facility. Are there a variety of residential facilities throughout the province, or are these individual facilities? What's the nature of these facilities, how many are there, and what's the cost in this area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and there is a specific reason why it's titled "residential living arrangements" rather than "homes": we use the model of designating specific beds or living arrangements within other group homes for pregnant young moms. We spent $940,000 in 1994-95 on that service.
V. Anderson: I understand that this would cover young women who are pregnant and also the young mothers after the babies have arrived. Would that be true? I would gather by the minister nodding her head that it covers both in that particular area.
Moving on to respite resource services, which is to support the parents or individuals, how much is spent in that area? What kinds of services are key in that program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This service is a valued and valuable service. We spent $1.61 million in the last fiscal year on this service. It's to provide respite or relief to parents who may have mentally handicapped children or foster parents who are on duty around the clock.
V. Anderson: As we look at these programs, many of them sound very similar to each other, and you begin to wonder why the particular designation. You have social support enhancement services. What would distinguish this program from some of the other programs? How much money would be involved in it? Who supplies these services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The question was about social support enhancement services. We spent $600,000 on that in '94-95. But the hon. member is quite right in saying that many of the programs sound as if they're overlapping and similar. That's absolutely true, and it's important for us to recognize, with the implementation of the new Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995, that all of these programs must be revisited, re-examined and changed if necessary. And that process is under way in preparation for the proclamation of the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995.
V. Anderson: That's an interesting comment, and I'm not surprised by it or by its necessity. Having worked with community agencies, I expect many of the community agencies out there are wondering what their future will be as a result of these changes. Many of them may cease to exist -- or at least cease to be funded -- because the focus may be in other areas. The minister may want to comment on that. At the same time, I ask her about the special services to children and families: what is the specific focus of this program, and how much money is spent on it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We spent $11.1 million on this program. It's a long-established program, and basically it's the offering of one-on-one support to children and families. As of 1994, we had provided services to just over 1,000 children in that year, family support to another 728 families, and one-on-one support to 281 children in care.
V. Anderson: What is the focus of the program called support for social work planning, how much money is involved in it, how is that support provided, and by whom?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said earlier, this program is unrelated to GAIN. However, in some circumstances young parents who have to get to their training or get to their programs
[ Page 15310 ]
need assistance in order to do that -- for instance, bus fare. Or in some cases, where the program requires that the children not be there, then it's for child care expenses, etc. We spent $430,000 on that in 1994-95.
V. Anderson: The last program in this section is support to young parents and pregnant women. What's the distinction of that from the program we talked about earlier? What kind of support is provided, and how much?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This program is for young women who are not needing residence or shelter support, so it's a non-residential program. In 1994 there were 62 contracts for service provided through 59 contracted service providers. It's an educational program which assists young parents and pregnant women to prepare for giving birth and also for the caring of the child. It supports young families with professional counselling services to assist them in maintaining family stability. It is also to assist young pregnant women and new moms in accessing community resources that are available.
V. Anderson: The minister didn't mention the expenditure in that particular program.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In '94-95 it was $4.7 million.
V. Anderson: We now come to the section on child protection with a family focus. There are a number of programs that come under this, but perhaps the minister might just comment on how this will be affected by the implementation of the new act. She has indicated that there would be some changes coming, and I presume that child protection with a family focus will have some alterations because of this.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is not a program; "Child Protection with a 'Family' Focus" is an information item for people, so they know what our responsibility as a ministry is, what our obligation is and what our mission is. It gives a description, in a very minimal way, about the obligation for people to participate in the protection of children. The new act provides for a much more clearly delineated definition of child abuse and when a child is in need of protection. We have just introduced an amendment to the act to say that the protection and well-being of the child is paramount over every other principle in the new act. The obligation to report allegations of abuse and the obligation for us to follow up on those reports have been tightened in the new act.
V. Anderson: Under that is the Helpline for Children. Could you indicate what use has been made of that, what the cost is for operating it and how many people we have staffing that line?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In l994-95 the direct costs of operating the Helpline -- that's just physically answering the phone and doing the referrals -- was $1.9 million. There are 21 FTEs staffing the Helpline. From April 1994 to March 1995 the average number of calls per month was 2,700. So 2,700 times 12 is.... It's some number I don't have. Anyway, those were the average monthly calls.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, I was a little late arriving. I want to just go back, with the minister's indulgence, to the residential living arrangements for pregnant teens and teen mothers. How many of those beds are available around the province at the present time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We believe that we can provide residential accommodation for any young mom in need. There are six contract service providers throughout the province. I am aware of the issue that the hon. member faces in his own community. We do try, within the context of the tax dollars available, to provide the service in the most cost-effective way. As much as possible, we try to make sure that the young woman gets to stay in her own community if she so chooses. But it has to be done in the context of effective expenditure of tax dollars.
R. Neufeld: If you could get me those numbers at some point in time, when you can work them out....
I want to say that it is a good program and, I think, much needed. I am speaking specifically about the constituency of Peace River North. At present -- I'm going by memory -- I think there are only two or three beds supplied by contract in Fort St. John. That covers all of the North and South Peace. There was a movement to close those in the interests of money, I guess -- I'm not sure about maybe some other ramifications -- and move those teens who would use those facilities to the lower mainland. I wonder just how wise a move that is. The lower mainland is a long way from Fort St. John when you're talking about teen mothers in that situation. You're talking about a lot of stress, and if they do have to leave.... If they're lucky enough to have some family there, and they have to leave that family and go to Vancouver, which a lot of them are not comfortable with -- I guess that's the word to use.... I do understand that we need to watch the dollars, but I would like to see some effort to maintain beds in the North and South Peace in order to provide service for those areas.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the hon. member makes some good points. It is a good program, of course. The program that makes, I think, the most sense is pregnancy prevention, and we certainly need to.... We're now offering in the member's home area a broader counselling service that will focus specifically on pregnancy prevention initiatives. But there is no question in the meantime that support should be provided where prevention fails.
We have looked at the situation in Fort St. John. The beds were not being extensively used and were at a very low occupancy rate. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that when a situation arises, there shouldn't be service provided. We are in discussions right now with the Ministry of Women's Equality, and I think we've progressed a fair way. We'll provide the funding to the transition house, and beds are available for use there. That has been discussed within the community and is being well received.
[3:15]
R. Neufeld: I'm glad those discussions are going on, because there is some confusion, actually, amongst all the organizations in Fort St. John about some of the transition homes. Some of them are not being used to their maximum when they could be in most cases, and the same with the beds for pregnant teens. So I appreciate that from the minister, that they're working on it.
[ Page 15311 ]
V. Anderson: The next section talks about a variety of residential resources. The first of those would be foster care. Could the minister indicate how many children are in care and approximately how many foster-care homes -- I know it varies on a regular basis -- there are at the present time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just go through the various questions. As of March 31, 1995, there were 5,747 children in care. The first couple of categories of family care.... There are three levels of foster care. There were 1,560 children in restricted/regular family care. The next level is specialized family care, and there were 2,364 children in those homes. Then we have specialized resources -- what, in some cases, we call residential resources or group homes -- and there were 1,823 children in specialized resources care. The cost for family care, which is the foster care system, was $48 million. The contracted group homes, or staffed specialized resources, cost an additional $67.7 million, for a total of $115.7 million.
V. Anderson: I have two questions. Is the number of children in care increasing or decreasing at this particular moment? And, related to that, is it becoming easier or more difficult to get foster care homes?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The number of children coming into care is on the increase, but the explanation for that increase is demographically driven. There's an increase in the population of children under 19 years old, so the increase in the number of children coming into care is proportionate to that demographic increase -- which, I guess, on one level isn't good news, regardless. The fact of the matter is that proportionately, children are in need of protection as the population grows, regardless of changes in society. The caseload in March 1995 was up by about 8 percent from the caseload in March 1994.
By the same token, though, we have increased family support services by about 7 percent, as well, so we're keeping the balance between those who are in need of protection and those who can assist through family support. I had the pleasure of meeting with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, a couple of weeks ago. They are a very dedicated group, and they have a wealth of experience that has much to offer our children in this province. However, they are very concerned about not only recruiting new foster parents but also maintaining those with experience who are now in the system. I wish we could highlight more in the public eye the valuable service that foster parents offer. What tends to get highlighted in the media are the exceptions and the very sad stories, but those are truly the exceptions.
I find that in my own riding -- the inner-city riding of Vancouver-Hastings, in East Vancouver -- recruitment of new foster parents is taking on a new meaning. Communities are concerned that their children who are in temporary need of foster care are having to be moved very far away, far beyond a bus ride. So my own community is coming together in partnership with our ministry in a recruiting drive. That is being replicated throughout the province, but of course, there are some communities that are much better at taking up the recruitment issue than others that do not have the resources available. Maintaining foster parents and recruiting them is an issue that we are grappling with in a very serious and dedicated way.
L. Stephens: I have a couple of questions around children-in-care issues. One that is particularly relevant to my constituency of Langley is the Alan Winters case, which I'm sure the minister is familiar with. First of all, how are these foster parents monitored? Are they checked? What kind of procedure does the ministry go through to make sure that these homes are indeed safe for children in care? Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm speaking in the context of what the situation is today. I know that the hon. member is well aware that I can't comment on the specifics of any case.
The recruitment process has tightened up greatly over the course of the last decade. When foster parents apply or are recruited, they have to go through a criminal-record check, a reference check, a home study-review and training -- quite intensive training. We are always working with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to enhance our protocol arrangements for recruitment and to ensure that we do so with the best interests of the child in mind. Perhaps this is in anticipation, but one can never have too much information: we are also working with the federation on revisions to those protocols to establish procedures for investigating allegations of abuse in foster homes. The corollary is resolving disputes between foster parents and social workers. Those protocols will be completed by the end of this month.
L. Stephens: The minister mentioned that there have been some changes to the procedures over the last ten years or so. I'm sure the minister is aware that the particular case that I speak of was ongoing from 1967 to 1983. There were numerous complaints made at that time, yet nothing was done. What I'd like to know is: what remedies are in place to make sure that these kinds of allegations are responded to in a timely and in a much more expeditious manner than has been the case previously? This isn't just one case; there have been a number of cases that have come forward, and they all say the same thing. I'd like to know some of the specific actions of the ministry in the upcoming year that address the concerns of members of the general public and members of the opposition.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Please, I can't comment on the specifics of any case. I know that the hon. member is talking about a specific case, but let me generally talk about the changes within the last decade.
I've outlined the situation of the protocols that have only come into place within the last decade. Since 1991 we've done what is called a permanent-ward review -- an unusual term. Permanent wards are children in care who are the ministry's responsibility. We're the guardian for the children; they're not there on a temporary basis. We've done a permanent-ward review, and we've learned much from that review.
We have put the residential historical abuse program in place, which is a well-used and well-funded counselling program for people who, at sometime in their lives, have been in a government residential situation and have suffered abuse. As I say, that program is well-used.
The new Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act provides, for the very first time ever, rights to children in care. When those rights are abused, there is a legal avenue of redress in the new act. We have a review board in place under the new act that allows for complaints to be heard where there are allegations of abuse. This is beyond the protocol that's in place, working with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations.
[ Page 15312 ]
We have the Youth in Care Network as a result of our government's support, where the youth themselves have resources available to communicate their rights and responsibilities as a child in care. There is a wonderful video out that I would urge all members to watch, which was produced by the Youth in Care Network and had its debut late last year.
Lastly, there is of course the child, youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston, who has assumed office as of May 15. Each and every person who receives services under our ministry -- our family and child services -- has access to Ms. Preston to make a complaint, which she is obliged to investigate and rectify.
L. Stephens: I was pleased to be part of the standing committee that chose the child, youth and family advocate. I can say that we support our choice. I know it's going to be a very forward-looking piece of legislation and certainly a position that the province has needed for a very long time.
[3:30]
During the course of choosing that advocate, we had a number of individuals come to us to testify. One was a young lady who had been in care, and there were some really disturbing stories that she told. They weren't unusual; they just weren't unusual. They happen every day, in my understanding. More of these are coming forward now, and I see the minister has instigated the residential historical abuse program, which will go a long way to help those individuals that have passed through the system now.
But there is still work to be done around that issue. I would like to know whether or not the ministry is going to be doing something other than this residential historical abuse program to deal with those individuals who were in care and had enormous difficulties around that, particularly in the sexual abuse and physical abuse areas. What is the ministry going to be doing to try to redress some of those wrongs that have happened over the last ten years -- even within the last ten years that the minister speaks of as having had some substantive initiatives made around dealing with this very real problem?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The residential historical abuse program is very successful; we've already canvassed that. The person who has allegations of abuse in the past can also make application for financial compensation to the Criminal Injury Compensation Board. There are specific criteria by which one is eligible to apply under that program. Alternatively, an individual can initiate a civil action.
In terms of forward-looking programs, when the new act is implemented this year, I hope that we will put an end to many of the allegations of abuse that have occurred historically. However, we still have a population, which we have to respond to, that will not have the benefit of being in care under the new act. If there are questions, if anyone has questions now about the period when they were children in care, we actually have a person coordinating questions and helping the person find the best resources available to help him or her deal with that period of time. That's through the deputy superintendent's office. However, I and our government believe that we have to take a coordinated approach, a sympathetic approach, a compassionate approach to dealing with issues of allegations of historical abuse. There is an interministry committee dealing specifically with this issue, and I predict that more recommendations from that committee will be forthcoming.
L. Stephens: There are still a number of foster parents who have been -- I presume, and I'm sure -- fostering for the past 20 to 25 years. The criminal-record check that will be enacted will, in fact, capture those individuals who will be working with children. Is there going to be a mechanism for the ministry to look into all foster parents, not just those who may be coming forward now and will be part of and subject to the new act? Is there a plan for the ministry to do a comprehensive review of every single foster parent in this province and make sure that, as children deserve, they are being kept safe? Does the ministry have a plan to deal with the whole issue around children in care and their safety?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, all foster parents in the system now have had a criminal-record check done, regardless of when they started providing services of foster care. Every foster parent is subject to an annual review where all of these checks are reviewed.
L. Stephens: What I would also like to hear the minister say is that allegations of abuse are taken seriously; that the ministry staff now has very clear direction on what their roles and responsibilities are around reported abuse; and that there are going to be some very clear guidelines on how these kinds of allegations are handled. I wonder if the minister would share with this committee what those clear guidelines and responsibilities for the line workers and supervisors are.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely; we take it with the utmost seriousness. The primary responsibility of my ministry, and one that I personally take very seriously, is the protection of our children from abuse, neglect and harm. I can share the guidelines with the hon. member. There's a policy in place, and I can share that policy with her. We can provide it to you tomorrow -- or later today, even. The policy is done in cooperation with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. As I say, that protocol is being revised right now to be updated and kept current in the context of the new act.
L. Stephens: I look forward to receiving that particular policy.
There's another area that has come to light in my riding, and that's around babysitting. I have a situation where there's a mother with three children. She's working; she was on welfare, but she is now working. Because of the nature of her job -- her hours are irregular -- she is unable to keep a babysitter. She has lost a number of babysitters over this particular issue. Her mother is prepared to live with her and look after the children, yet the Ministry of Social Services says that that's not possible. If the mother were living outside of the home, she could get welfare. Her mother would be able to go on welfare or be paid the babysitter's subsidy, but because the mother is living in the home with the daughter, she does not qualify as a babysitter to receive the babysitter's supplement from Social Services. Schedule E, day care services, sets it out in regulation 479-78. I presume '78 is the year that this was enacted, so perhaps it might be time to go back and take another look. The daughter has been struggling to get off welfare, and now she's just going to end up back again. She
[ Page 15313 ]
can't get a babysitter to stay, because of the hours that she works. And her mother, who is there, ready and able to look after the children, can't do that because she needs to work, too. So I wonder if the minister would comment on this policy and whether it perhaps needs to have another look.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, hon. member, we'd be more than happy to look into the situation. I will raise it with the Minister of Women's Equality, who is now responsible for child care policy and child care subsidy payments. But generally, as I understand it, the policy is that in-home child care can be claimed, but not if it's being provided by a relative. That has been the policy for a long time. But if the member wishes, I'll raise this with the Minister of Women's Equality.
L. Stephens: This is the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, and I assume that falls under the Ministry of Social Services.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: I stand corrected. It does not. Thank you.
This does state that for day care services for children the ministry may share costs with families. This is the section that it falls under. Is the minister aware of these kinds of difficulties, and does she see a need to redress this particular problem where individuals are trying to get off welfare, they have family members whom they trust more than an individual they don't know, and whether there should be and could be some kind of dispensation or some kind of method by which family members can become part of the child care group?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am always reluctant to stray into another minister's territory. But it is a subject in which I am very interested, so let me make a couple of general comments.
There is no question that the provision of adequate, safe and affordable child care is key to moving people from welfare to work. Our government has expanded child care in this province on a level that's never been seen before. This is very important, particularly amongst single parents, who need child care in order to move from income assistance to the permanent workforce. The average number of children receiving subsidies in this province under our government is 29,000 per month, and we process an average of 19,000 subsidy claims in each and every month. So yes, it's an important issue. However, in the context of the limited dollars available for child care subsidies, lines have to be drawn. And the line drawn around the family is that where there is a relative who is able to look after the children in their own home, that is a family responsibility. It does beg the question: if one parent stays home -- chooses not to work outside the home and therefore the family then becomes eligible for a child care subsidy -- should that family have a child care subsidy? The answer to that question right now is that in the context of the tax dollars available, that family is not eligible for income assistance. I suspect that in the context of the massive off-loading we're facing from the federal government -- $800 million by the year 1997-98 -- we will not be able to expand child care subsidies to cover one relative living in the home. I would also say that the federal government is not assisting us in any way with providing affordable and effective child care, even though that was major promise in the last federal election.
L. Stephens: The discussion around the federal so-called downloading to the provinces is old news. It has been old news for a very long time. As a matter of fact, it goes back to 1985 when all successive governments knew that there would be diminishing transfer payments. This posturing from this government really is very old news.
Around the child care initiatives -- in making sure that they are effective and efficient -- I would agree with the minister that there is difficulty in making those determinations among family members as to what should and shouldn't apply. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps looking at the situation in terms of what is efficient and what is effective would be the proper way to proceed.
I have one other question, and it's around the issue of the mentally disabled and those individuals who are living in the community. I'd like the minister to comment on what is available to young people living in the community on their own, and what role the Social Services ministry plays in their ability to maintain a lifestyle that is safe and healthy again.
[3:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just an editorial comment on the federal off-loading. It may be old news to members opposite; however, every time I turn my back, there is brand-new news of off-loading from the federal government. It is particularly galling that the current federal government -- which campaigned in their famous red book on the provision of a national child care program -- guaranteed a child care program once the GNP, or economic growth, exceeded 3 percent in any year. The economy grew by 3 percent, and guess what. There isn't any child care. So that is new news, and it's distressing news to us. However, our continued commitment to expanding child care remains unimpeded by federal off-loading.
On the community support services for -- I assume you mean -- young adults with a mental handicap, there are training and support programs in the form of self-help skills, supported work programs and achievement centres. I can go through some of those in terms of the services available. There's a category called intensive adult care resources. It's a short-term specialized resource whose services may include residential care and supervision, as well as specialized services to assist individuals with severe behaviour and adjustment challenges. We have a community placement project, and the goal is to place all residents with mental handicaps from Woodlands and Glendale in the community by 1996. Then we have, as I've said, the day services for people with mental handicaps.
If you wish, I'll go through the services. I've mentioned the self-help services, which are self-help skills. They are to assist adults with mental handicaps by providing them with the necessary supports that will allow them to participate and be included in the community. We contract for a range of training services to develop their personal and social skills. The services can include training in personal care, use of public transportation, community access, communication, use of money in socialization and employment readiness skills.
Then we have the supported work program. It's to assist adults with a mental handicap, in giving them the support that will allow them to participate and be included in the community. It's a combination of work experience, ongoing support and training to assist them to find and maintain
[ Page 15314 ]
employment. It can be in the form of work experience or related training. It can be combined with on-or off-site supervision and support.
And then lastly we have achievement centres. That is a program whereby we provide subsidies to non-profit societies to offer organized training and support programs for adults with a mental handicap. There's a variety of programs and activities and services that can be offered, including training, work-related skills development, work experience and social integration.
We've come a long way. It is with a great deal of pride that I meet on a regular basis with people who have a mental handicap and who are fully integrated into the service. They advocate for themselves. They're a strong voice in urging me to make wise choices in moving them into the regular workforce. We are having a whole generation of adults with mental handicaps reach the age of majority, who not only have completed schooling but are now expecting to be part of the mainstream workforce. It's very exciting, and I look forward to doing even more in this area.
R. Neufeld: Going back to foster homes.... On the reference check that the minister spoke about, the training and the home study -- the criminal-record check is obvious -- who performs those duties? I just want to get it from the ground up. In my constituency, with someone wanting to provide a foster care home, who would do those three jobs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: If someone applies or is recruited to be a foster parent, they are dealt with by a social worker of the ministry. She or he is called the resource social worker. The social worker ensures that the audit criteria for foster care homes are met. They review the skills and abilities of the caregivers and ensure that they know they are to be responsible for continuous upgrading and training. Then the social worker arranges with the police to do a criminal-record check. Then, of course, there's a home study done.
R. Neufeld: By the same person?
Hon. J. MacPhail: By the resource social worker, yes.
R. Neufeld: So, obviously, it's usually just one person who does the whole study. Can you tell me what training these people have? I'm speaking specifically of things that may happen later on in life, such as fetal alcohol syndrome. What training do these people have, who do the home study and the training of the foster home parent in handling those types of situations? They're not easy to detect, and they're difficult to deal with.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just need clarification whether the hon. member is talking about the qualifications of the resource social worker or of the foster parent.
R. Neufeld: The social worker.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The social worker? Oh, okay. The social worker has the core training of.... Many of our social workers are university graduates, but each and every social worker has completed the two weeks of classroom training and then the six- month, on-the-job training program. However, we are changing that, as we've announced, and the 23 workdays -- which is over four weeks of core training for new social workers -- is scheduled to be delivered this year in the implementation of the new act. If you're a brand-new social worker, you'll get an additional three months for new social workers on the job.
Also we have specialized workshops delivered in local areas, such as our fetal alcohol syndrome workshop. We try to work with community agencies and the medical profession as new information emerges about children with fetal alcohol syndrome. Our staff take a very active role in participating in those workshops and the new training and support systems that are required for children with FAS. That's just one example. We also have specialized training workshops in the area of recognition of neglect, for instance.
R. Neufeld: The training for detecting or being able to deal with FAS.... Is each and every social worker or resource person trained in that, or do we specialize in that field when and if the need arises? I don't think it would be significant all over, but there should be specialists, I would think, in the field within the ministry.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, every social worker has access to the training now in the core training program. However, we're not standing still on this issue. We have a research program that we're working on with the University of Victoria specifically on connecting two studies, which when completed will revamp our training in the area of FAS. One study is on Parents with FAS-FAE -- the parents suffer from it -- their experiences, needs and support strategies. The second study is a profile of young children in care with suspected FAS-FAE or NAS -- neonatal abstinence syndrome. We have a core-group-of-support network, as I said earlier, that we work with on FAS-FAE, and they've identified a number of issues for caregivers, primarily training. That's why we piloted these two studies, which when completed will revamp the core training.
R. Neufeld: It's been a long time since I've been involved in the foster home situation. What information is given to the foster home provider about the background of the children that they're taking into foster care?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is our obligation to give every single bit of information that we have available at the time that is relevant to the child's well-being and to the foster parent being able to assist in providing for that child. The child's history, the family situation, the expectation of the natural family's involvement, the current medical concerns of the child, the medical history of the child, and the current psychological and social functioning of the child. We give observations and known behavioural assessments of the child. Also established is a placement service plan for the child. Then we give to the foster parents the expectations of care for the child.
Perhaps I can anticipate what the hon. member is leading to, and that is that there have been cases in the past where foster parents have suggested that they did not have the full information available about the situation of the child in order to best care for the child. The fact of the matter is that we are required to provide all of that information, but applying the standards of medical information today to historical situations often doesn't work. Information is emerging all the time around attention deficit disorder for children, FAS, FAE and
[ Page 15315 ]
neonatal abuses of substances. Even on the issues of sexual abuse and neglect there are many more indicators emerging that become relevant in assessing a child when placing her in a foster home. However, we are required to provide all of this information and withhold nothing that is relevant to maintaining the well-being of the child.
R. Neufeld: I know that in the past -- I'm not going to try to go back too far -- there was very little information given to foster home parents about a child's background. I can tell you that from experience. What about the...? If we're obliged to give all the information on the children, how about...? If we know the parents of those children, or if we have a record of that, are those records given to the foster home parents also?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, all relevant information about the child's family situation, which may include relevant information about the family parental history, is given. But it has to be relevant; it's not a seek-and-search, or whatever that term is.
[4:00]
R. Neufeld: I'm certainly not trying to indicate that we should seek and search. What I'm asking for is confirmation that all information that is reasonable to that child is given to the foster parents.
Getting away from that part of it.... I know it's the ministry's goal to have all aboriginal children who are in foster care with aboriginal foster parents. Are we there? Are there any children who are not in aboriginal homes now? Are they all transferred over?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I'm sad to say that we're not there. A disturbing statistic continues to exist in our caseload of children in care: 33 percent -- one third of the children in care -- are aboriginal children. Of course, we know that's far in excess of their base in the general population. It is improving slowly -- not nearly fast enough for both the aboriginal communities' wishes and ours. We are working more closely with aboriginal communities to delegate the responsibility for the well-being of their children -- child welfare. Always, though, the ultimate responsibility is held by us.
We are engaged in some interesting projects to encourage the recruitment of aboriginal-family foster homes. Not to spend too much time on my own constituency matters, but a community centre that straddles the Premier's constituency and mine, Ray-Cam Community Centre, has a very encouraging, innovative project for community outreach to inner-city foster parents, including a major focus on aboriginal foster parents. We have to keep working at it. It's improving, but not fast enough.
R. Neufeld: I want to put on the record that I agree with the direction we're going. Could the minister tell us how far along we are? It was a goal of this government a number of years ago to move to that. I know that agreements have been reached with a number of bands. Maybe the minister could explain in percentage terms -- and it doesn't have to be exact -- how many aboriginal children have been moved back into aboriginal foster care.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll provide that information. I don't have that here today.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that.
Secondly -- I don't know if maybe I missed what the minister said -- what are some of the problems that government is experiencing in trying to get that goal achieved? What are some of the remedies that we as government have to help that along?
Hon. J. MacPhail: First and foremost, there's the issue that aboriginal families have to be asked. In the past, they haven't been part of the ordinary recruiting process for foster family homes. That's changing, slowly but surely. However, there is also the issue that a family has to have a certain base level of resources -- for instance, accommodation big enough to accommodate another child or a few children. We have to look for new and innovative ways of allowing for that accommodation in families that are at a lower socioeconomic level. Of course, you and I both know that many aboriginal communities suffer from continuing low economic vibrancy. We're now looking at ways to support aboriginal families that may need assistance in actually getting an extra room, for instance. Right now, in the ordinary course of recruiting foster parents, that resource is already in place: an extra bedroom, literally, for a child. These are some of the issues that we're having to face.
We in our province are also reaching delegation agreements with various aboriginal communities. There are eight delegation agreements in place right now. They're delivering family and child services to their own communities, and foster parenting will be part of that. There are many more first nations communities that are seeking delegation of that authority, as well.
R. Neufeld: Can the minister briefly tell me, please, how much money has been expended or is going to be expended this year in achieving those goals for that program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year we spent $6.4 million on family and child services to aboriginal families. That does not include the child-in-care part for aboriginal children, though.
R. Neufeld: Going on from there, how do we deal with the rest of society or other nationalities within foster care? Is it done in much the same way as we are trying with the aboriginal group? Do we try to place those people from other cultures into the same culture? Is that the mission of the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, indeed. We are doing outreach to a broad range of ethnic communities, and many ethnic communities are approaching me as well and saying: "Our community wants to be involved in looking after our own children." The new legislation, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, says, of course, that a child's background and heritage has to be taken into account. So we're not only doing it because it's the right thing to do; we're obligated now under the act to attempt to provide culturally appropriate homes for children. Again, we're working through multicultural, ethnically based community groups to achieve this.
J. van Dongen: I just have one question for the minister based on a question from a constituent. This particular indi-
[ Page 15316 ]
vidual had a good-paying job. He was 52 years old when he was injured, and so his only source of income was a social assistance cheque. Once he reached a particular age, he became eligible for a pension of something like $182, and he had been looking forward to using that to catch up on some of his normal bills. I guess the policy of the ministry is to deduct that pension from his social assistance cheque. My concern is that we should be focusing on trying to save dollars when we're dealing with able-bodied people who possibly can get a job. But in this case, maybe we need to have some consideration for someone who became handicapped through no fault of his own, and hence had to go on social assistance as his only source of income. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'll reiterate for the hon. member how our payer-of-last-resort system works. We don't deduct from income assistance payments; we top up to a certain level on the income that a person has. So you almost have to reverse your thinking about this. I know people like to say that we deduct a dollar, but what we do is this. If you have a certain level of income and it's short of the income assistance payment, then we top up to the level of payment that you're allowed under the income assistance payment schedule. But we are a payer of last resort; income assistance is absolutely the payer of last resort. It pays for basic needs: food, shelter and clothing, and unearned income is part of that. You calculate unearned income as part of the money that's assessed in figuring out what you need to top up to achieve the level of income support allowed under the GAIN Act.
Let me assure you that if a person has a disability that can be assessed and confirmed, there are extra benefits available under the GAIN Act for people with disabilities. Again, I reiterate that our government announced just two weeks ago an expansion of the definition for GAIN for Handicapped that is much more inclusive and much more relevant to today's issues that people with disabilities face. So there is provision there to assist in levelling the playing field for people with disabilities.
L. Stephens: I'd just like to ask a couple of questions around the issue of apprehension. I'd like to know whether or not there have been some changes to this particular policy in the last little while around the issue of alcohol and drug abuse by parents. Are there new directives, or is the ministry looking at perhaps changing policies around parents who have alcohol and drug abuse problems, mental disabilities or numerous complaints of neglect and abuse? I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Every single allegation of abuse is investigated on an individual basis. The paramount consideration, confirmed again in our new legislation, is the safety and well-being of the child. We start from the point of view of investigating the allegation to determine how safe and how well the child is in the context of her family situation or care situation. Certainly, on an individual assessment, factors about the ability of the parents to protect the child -- all factors of parenting -- are taken into account. If any substance abuse is interfering or putting the child at risk, then that factor is taken into account.
[4:15]
L. Stephens: I'm sure it is the case that when the social workers -- the line workers -- are doing their investigations, those are some of the things they would take into consideration. What I'd like the minister to tell the committee is what kind of latitude the workers have when making that assessment.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, any allegation of abuse is investigated thoroughly. If the social worker has a concern about the safety and well-being of the child, he or she has the right to remove that child from the home. The degree of progress is not a factor if the social worker remains concerned about the child's safety and well-being. All of the issues are dealt with through the courts, and the determination of the paramountcy of the safety and well-being of the child rests with the judge.
L. Stephens: I recognize and understand that in some cases there may be a very fine line about whether or not those particular parents can benefit from parenting skills or some kind of consultation and help provided by a variety of social service agencies. I wonder if the minister would comment on whether those kinds of things are available, and whether they are aggressively pursued by ministry social workers to provide some level of parenting skills to custodial parents who may, in the view of the worker, have marginal parenting skills.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Every day our social workers face issues about what is in the best interest of the child. Is it in the best interest of the child to have the child removed from her home, or is it in the best interest to give support to the family and have the child supported in her own home? I doubt that any of us would disagree that the best resource for a child is a safe and healthy family. So the social workers make those judgement calls in an increasingly complex world each and every day. However, what we have done as a ministry is to ensure that the complexities in that decision-making aren't affected by resources available. So we have increased our budget by almost 13 percent to family and children's services this year so that a social worker knows when making that difficult judgement that there are support services there to provide to a family if that's what is needed in best protecting the child.
L. Stephens: I acknowledge that the judgment calls the social workers are called upon to make every day are very real, and I'm sure very difficult in many instances. If I recall, there was a recommendation last year that social workers receive additional training or different types of training. I wonder if the minister would comment on whether her ministry is looking at providing in-service upgrading of skills for social workers in her ministry, dealing with these very difficult issues of children in care.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There have been many recommendations for improved training for social workers. Of course, Judge Gove, who is conducting the inquiry into the protection of children, has given some excellent advice on this, and I anticipate more advice from him. I'll just repeat this, because I know you weren't here. We've moved from two weeks of core training for social workers to three weeks immediately. With the implementation of the new act, that is going to be increasing by the fall to three months of classroom training for people, and then three months of on-the-job training. It's a
[ Page 15317 ]
very particular on-the-job training model -- I refer to it as almost an internship, because it's not on-the-job-training where you show up and learn while you work.
We have also instituted specialized in-service training in areas such as FAS families and investigation and reporting of neglect. I know that many of our social workers deal and train among themselves around parent-teen conflict, etc. So those programs are all being enhanced in the area of training.
We're also working very closely with the schools of social work. I personally have met with a few of them to ensure that the training one receives in a university toward a bachelor of social work is as relevant as is possible in an academic institution to take on the important work of child protection. In earlier days I would have said that I had received a mixed response from the schools of social work, but that's no longer true, because they're now working very closely and very well with us. I'm just advised that the new University of Northern British Columbia has offered special training this summer for our district supervisors in the area of enhanced training.
L. Stephens: The 13 percent increase in the budget for services. Is this in the area of enhancing services that are already provided by the ministry? Or is the ministry going into more proactive initiatives to reach into the communities to perhaps try to prevent some of these instances from arising? Or is the ministry, in fact, just trying to keep up with what's already out there? Could the minister comment on whether she is actively pursuing educating, particularly, young girls and reaching into the high schools to talk a little bit about some of the choices teen mothers could make -- or even the decision not to become a teen mother.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I couldn't agree with you more that there should be choices not to do something in our programs. Yes, we have canvassed that a bit. We are emphasizing much more the prevention initiatives for young girls entering womanhood -- how to make choices that prevent teen pregnancy. There are very serious issues facing young moms. Ninety percent of teen moms end up on income assistance. We're working closely with not only our own community agencies but also the Ministry of Education to ensure prevention initiatives as well as support for those who find themselves pregnant.
In terms of our budget increase for family and child services, some of it is due to keeping up with population increases. We have heard and we know that the heavy workload of social workers is at issue. I am pleased to say that through the budgeting process we've been able to secure greatly enhanced resources for front-line social workers. We put 50 more child protection workers in place last fiscal year, and by the end of this fiscal year there will be 240 more front-line social workers and support staff dealing with family and child services.
Also, the budget increase will go towards enhancing contracted services to prepare for implementation. It's in exactly those areas that the hon. member talks about: enhanced family support programs so that we can do more to ensure that children stay in their homes, but in a very safe and healthy environment. If that safe and healthy environment isn't there, the child will be removed from the home.
There is a specific section in the new Child, Family and Community Service Act that very specifically addresses youth services. For the very first time ever there is a recognition that youth have specific needs, and there will be greatly enhanced program support for youth. There are some programs in place right now that I believe are important in ensuring that young women make the right choices. Our Vancouver action plan for street kids is demonstrating in a very direct way that street life -- especially if it involves the sex trade -- is unsafe, unhealthy and is child abuse. So we have put $2 million into the community to get resources targeted specifically at youth, to get them off the street.
Lastly, the budget increase is going to make sure that our systems support makes sense in protecting children; that files are done in a way that makes best use of technology for families that move and are in need of support or where children are exposed to some risk, so that the child and/or the family do not fall through some electronic crack. We are enhancing our technology to make sure that those gaps are closed.
L. Stephens: I have one final question. I couldn't agree with the minister more that we need to have those social workers at the front line. They who are the ones who are really called upon to deal with these very difficult issues around children, families and youth. In order to do that, I think it's incumbent upon the government to look at their organization structure and at whether or not some reorganization of the ministry itself and a flattening of its structure isn't something that needs to be looked at in order to provide the resources that those individuals on the front line need, in fact, to do their jobs. So when the minister talks about systems support, I would hope that what she is talking about is deregulation, the reduction or the elimination of programs that are simply perhaps not efficient or effective any longer -- and that she has the ability to eliminate those programs, practices, policies and procedures that no longer have relevance to the world of social services today.
With that, hon. Chair, I would just ask the minister to perhaps comment on these systems supports that she spoke of earlier. I know it was in the context of making the ministry more efficient, in streamlining and technology, and so on -- making it easier and certainly more efficient for the ministry to operate. But the question I have is: would she comment in her estimates today on what steps the ministry is taking to eliminate those programs, policies and procedures that are no longer effective, whether or not the minister has done that and what the plan may be for this coming year?
[4:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Accountability to the public is key, absolutely, in the expenditure of tax dollars and the quality of services that we provide. I'll note a couple of points for members of the Legislature. Our administration is one of the lowest in percentage terms of any ministry in government, and, of course, there have also been recent statistics showing that British Columbia has one of the lowest costs per capita of the public service generally. I would also note for the House the general initiative our government announced in the recent budget of a de-layering process to cut out extraneous management levels.
We are constantly reviewing our programs and operations to make them more cost-effective and efficient, and if that means changing our structure and putting more resources into the front line, so be it. We have a strong internal
[ Page 15318 ]
research capacity that carries out research and evaluation on all of the programs to ensure they're effective. I'll show you one. A demonstration of that is this program inventory and evaluation framework for each and every program in the family and children's services division. This last one was reported out December 16, 1994.
We will change. There is no question that if something is not delivering the way it should, we will change it, but we will do it after a proper evaluation and proper inventory. Our government has instituted a contract reform project across five ministries; where we contract for services in the community, we will now standardize those contracts -- standardize the tendering of the contracts and standardize the evaluation, the auditing and the administration of those contracts. That is going to be really good news. I think that there will be a much more effective and cost-efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
I would also point out that we have an audit and review division devoted to audit and review of social work practice and to critical incidents and other problems that may arise in the family and children's services division. Of course, this is where we learn from the past in order to not repeat in the future. Lastly, I expect that we will receive some very useful recommendations from Judge Thomas Gove in the area of how better to deliver our programs in a meaningful way.
V. Anderson: I also want to take the opportunity to welcome Rick Cosby here. It's not very often in estimates that we lose a budget person and gain another one. I hope you have a very easy life ahead of you. It will be interesting, no doubt, and I wish you well.
I beg leave to make an introduction. Leave granted.
V. Anderson: I want to introduce Roderick Louis, who is in the House today, and to welcome him here. He has a strong interest in discussions that have taken place, particularly about advocacy around Riverview. I ask the House to make him welcome. I would like to follow up on a few questions from some of the discussion we've had just in the last few minutes and ask the minister if she might be kind enough to let me have a copy of the new foster care protocol agreement as soon as it is available. I'd appreciate receiving it. We've been looking for it for over a year now, so I'm glad to know it will soon be finished and available.
Without going into individual cases, there are a number of cases, as the minister is aware, of foster care parents who were included in the Gove inquiry. Their task of being foster care parents was terminated abruptly by the ministry for one reason or another. One of the difficulties with the process of those terminations -- and some of them may be valid and others not; I'm not getting into that particular discussion -- is that the foster care parents found themselves in no way having a level playing field in being able to appeal that termination, except by internal workings within the ministry. There was nothing outside available to them, except to go to court.
The difficulty with this is that a fairly significant number of foster parents have tried to the best of their ability to put in money and resources, and have mortgaged their houses. I know there's one case that's even now before the courts waiting for a response. The persons have lost their livelihood and their recommendations for going out and getting other kinds of employment. It not only has been disastrous for these foster parents, but it also makes it difficult for other persons who would become foster parents to move into the system, knowing the extreme danger and hazards. I wonder if the minister would comment on whether there is a system coming into place where there can be a level playing field for foster parents to protect themselves in these circumstances.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am reviewing ground that we have covered, but it's an important issue. Again, the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations -- who, of course, are foster parents, each and every one of them -- is involved from the ground up with not only the protocol for establishing foster homes but also the review of foster homes in terms of keeping them accredited, for lack of a better term. Also, we've got two new protocols going: one, where there is a complaint made against the foster home, and a second, where a foster parent has a complaint about us, the Ministry of Social Services. So that's the internal mechanism.
Then there is also the Child and Family Review Board, which will be established under the new act. That's an independent review board, separate and apart from the ministry, that will be able to hear complaints from both the child in care, perhaps, or the foster parent, who may have an issue with the ministry. Lastly, there is every intention that foster parents have access to the child advocate.
V. Anderson: I hear the minister saying that under the new Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act and the new advocate, not only will there be resources to children and youth, but there will also be new resources to foster parents and parents, so that they feel that they get adequate treatment. I know that it has happened in many cases that these adults have been told, in a sense: "If you get a lawyer and pay for your own resources, then you can be heard." They have attempted to do that, but they've run out of funds. They're working against the unlimited funds and power of the lawyers and the ministry.
In meeting with representatives of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, their comment to me was: "We're volunteers, and we don't have the personal time and resources and energy to give to these foster parents when these situations arise." They do not have the finances or an equal ability to help those foster parents to survive that kind of separation. When I inquired about this of the ministry in some cases, the answer I got was simply: "They're contracted services, and we've just cut the contract." That really isn't fair and doesn't give any guarantee of security, particularly when there are record numbers of foster parents who have lost all of their income and have even lost their homes as a result of trying to redeem not only the care of the children but even their own personal well-being and identities.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Your point is taken. I would suggest that our ministry provides a great deal of funding to the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations: $1.5 million. While individuals may volunteer, we do try to provide support to them through a substantial amount of money.
I would also suggest that there are between 3,500 and 5,000 foster parents. We mustn't generalize in terms of these
[ Page 15319 ]
situations, but it is exactly for the exceptions that the hon. member mentions that we have -- I reiterate -- made revisions to the protocol to deal with investigating allegations of abuse in foster homes and resolving disputes between foster parents and social workers. I gather that that is the practice the member refers to of their just being cut off by a social worker without due process.
V. Anderson: There is not only the feeling that they've been cut off by the social worker, but that they might even have been supported by the social worker and been cut off by the system of the ministry itself. That's been aptly demonstrated not only in our personal experience but in the record of the Gove inquiry on a number of occasions.
The minister also indicated a few minutes ago in discussion that reviews were underway. If these reviews are made public when they're completed, and if we can get a copy of those, we'd appreciate it very much in order to keep up with the discussion. We get many questions and comments from people, and we appreciate having that material for them.
One of the other areas that was talked about was young people who had been abused when they were in foster care, and I want to follow that up for a moment. I understood the minister to say that now -- which was not true a year or so ago -- those persons who had historically been abused in foster care would be able to come to the ministry or to the Attorney General's ministry, and not only would they be able to get counselling, which was available a year ago, but they would be able to get a review of their case. They would be able to get some restitution for those things that had happened to them as a result of being victims of the system in an earlier period. Could the minister confirm what I thought I heard her say: that there are now channels that weren't there a year ago, whereby restitution -- short of going to court and suing the ministry and the government -- is now available.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, this is under the purview of the Attorney General. I want to make sure, hon. member, that I give you the absolute facts, so I'm going to reply to you tomorrow as well. The rules and regulations for criminal injury compensation have changed, and the historical abuse applications can be made now. I do want to provide you with the exact changes from the Ministry of Attorney General, so I'll provide that for you -- later today, if we finish our estimates.
V. Anderson: Thank you. I'll wait until tomorrow. We might get through if we didn't have other people coming in and adding to it.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: I realize that.
There is another comment I want to pick up on, and we'll come back to a part of it later. You talked about the number of aboriginal children in foster care and the new arrangements and opportunities being given for those children in aboriginal communities, and I appreciate that.
[4:45]
I was recently talking to a person who has some aboriginal children in care. She was concerned about the freeze in effect at the moment on aboriginal children being able to go into non-aboriginal homes for adoption. She was concerned that these children, in effect, were in permanent foster care, which is really an impermanent situation, and at a very important time of their life were being deprived of being able to get into a foster home, and so were being discriminated against rather than being assisted in having a permanent relationship with a father and a mother. It's a very serious concern, when there are no foster homes available, if the freeze is preventing children from the opportunity to be adopted when there are adoptive parents who would be delighted to take them in and at the same time provide them with the opportunity to maintain their historical heritage and to grow up in a non-aboriginal home. Is there a reconsideration of this? This is a serious question from a person who has aboriginal children in care in a non-aboriginal home, who says: "How come these children are being deprived and probably will continue to be deprived of the ability to become adopted into a permanent home?"
Hon. J. MacPhail: You've touched on a very complex issue. The more I discuss this with aboriginal communities, I feel confident that we can maintain what is a very delicate balance, and first and foremost meet the needs of our aboriginal children. I'm sure the member opposite is well aware of the report, "Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nation," that arose out of the community panel in 1992. As a result of that report, the government placed a moratorium on adoption of aboriginal children into non-aboriginal homes. The moratorium was just on Social Services ministry adoptions, not private adoptions. But I want the member opposite to rest assured that there has been no moratorium on increasing aboriginal foster homes. I think you were referring to the moratorium on adoption which creates a problem for aboriginal children remaining in virtually permanent foster care.
I'm sure the member opposite is well aware that our colleague the MLA from Comox did a thorough review of the Adoption Act and worked with two aboriginal members on her review panel, Lizabeth Hall and Larry Gilbert. There were a series of recommendations that arose out of that. Of course, most of the recommendations anticipated change in adoption law, and I won't comment any further on that.
I think there can be a balance struck which takes into account an aboriginal child's heritage and, first and foremost, in which the birth parents -- both the mom and the dad, if the dad wants to be involved -- have a right to say that the child should be adopted into an aboriginal home. I also think that if the birth parents wish to exercise their right to have their band or their tribal council involved, that band should have status in determining the future of an aboriginal child in terms of ensuring the cultural heritage of the child. I think that at the end of the day, the birth mom and the community should have the flexibility to ensure the best interests of the child. At the end of the day, any law that deals with adoption -- that changes the way our children are adopted -- has to have first, foremost and paramount the best interests of the child in mind. In the meantime, we have a law that's dated 1957; none of these issues are addressed, of course, under the current law.
We have to deal in some way with the situation that the member opposite accurately describes of aboriginal children staying in foster care and not being adopted because there are not aboriginal adoptive parents yet. As we're working with aboriginal communities, we're trying to address that issue specifically, recruiting not only aboriginal foster homes but
[ Page 15320 ]
adoptive homes as well. I know that both members opposite probably speak with a far greater expertise than I do in the area of adoption. The discussions I've had with families who have not considered adoption are surprising; it's just not within their realm of consideration. Yet, especially within aboriginal communities, when the question is put to them, they're open and receptive. It's a wonderful experience to all of a sudden see that issue become one that a family might consider. That does require, though, a great deal of outreach into aboriginal communities. In the meantime, we're trying, as a ministry, to develop long-term plans and placements for aboriginal children which will preserve their kinship ties and cultural identity.
V. Anderson: I want to say that I think a moratorium for a short period -- until there was assessment -- probably had some advantages, because there needed to be corrections of the situation, which was out of hand. But a moratorium that deprives specific children at this time of the opportunity to have adoptive parents because of a long-range goal -- theoretically for other people ten, 15 or five years down the road -- is a moratorium that I think needs to be revisited.
Coming back to going through our program again.... Would the minister indicate how much is spent on group homes at this particular time? Is the number of group homes throughout the province increasing? Is the number of children in those homes increasing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We spent $22.49 million in 1994-95 on group homes. There were 185 group homes, and they were responsible for the care of 1,550 children.
V. Anderson: Could you comment on these specialized resources? They talk about receiving and assessment centres. What kind of centres are these? I would imagine that respite care is where people have been brought out of their homes into centres. What is the nature of the specialized resources? How many are there? What is the budget for those?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We spent $40.71 million on specialized resources in 1994-95. I think I could give you an example that's relevant; I think it might even be in the hon. member's own riding. The Children's Foundation, for instance, is an example of a specialized resource; it's a very big one. Those are the kinds of specialized resources throughout the province.
V. Anderson: Could you indicate how many there are? Are they spread throughout the province? While you're doing that, you might tie that in to the next area, which is intensive child care resources. I gather they are a specialized resource in another vein.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. I did have that information before, and I forgot to give it to you. There are 460 specialized resources, which are responsible for 2,400 children across the province. We spent about $2.62 million on intensive child care resources, and that's for the care and well-being of about 50 children.
V. Anderson: Some of these overlap with some of the discussions we've have had already, so we won't get into as much detail as we might otherwise. I'd like to move over, then, to the services to youth. Perhaps the minister could just comment for the record what ages we're using for youth, as opposed to children, within this description, and then comment on services to youth in care, which are listed in those two sections on that page of the document.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Services to youth is, believe you me, a shifting definition in terms of our youth and the services needed. Generally it's a child who's between the ages of 15 and 19 -- the age of majority being 19 -- but there are children who are street-involved much younger than that. I know, in terms of our Vancouver action plan for kids on the street, that some of them are street-involved as young as 13, many of them, but generally it's the ages 15 and up. The services-to-youth expenditure is $27.2 million.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
V. Anderson: I noticed in there that they talk about 60 percent of the approximately 6,000 children being 12 and over. I believe that in the United Nations convention on the rights of children, and also in the new child, youth and family service act, 12 is the age at which youth should be able to speak for themselves and to make decisions or at least comment on decisions being made on their behalf. I'm assuming that 12 to 15 is also on occasion included in that area, as well as over. Then it makes a comment as to services to former permanent wards. How many would be receiving services under that category at the moment? What kind of services would they be? What would be the cost?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Service to former permanent youth in care is a recognition that we have been the parent of children up until the time they reach the age of majority. Often there are obligations, as in the role of parent, to children beyond the age of majority, sometimes in the area of schooling, etc. We also know that in British Columbia approximately 70 percent of the youth leaving care go directly onto income assistance.
[5:00]
So this is a program to give a much more solid and life-sustaining transition to our youth in care. It's a program where we can offer financial and social support to former permanent youth in care up to the age of 21 years. They have to be enrolled in training programs, be seriously ill or have a disability in order to be eligible. There are approximately 200 former permanent youth in care currently receiving services through this program. We spent $1.6 million on this in 1994-95, and the budget will be increased by almost 10 percent this year.
Of course, the obligation to former permanent youth in care is changing with the current act, where there will be up to a 24- month obligation by us for the person, up to the time the person becomes 24 years old. The actual amount of time obligation remains the same -- two years. But you and I know that adults may choose to conduct themselves in a way that meaningfully attaches them to a training program after the age of 21, so we're taking that into account.
V. Anderson: I think the minister is saying that if, like with normal parents, the kids leave home and two years later they move back again, they come back to pick up their two years of obligation after they've been out for awhile.
[ Page 15321 ]
Could the minister comment, then, on services to youth not in care? There are a number of programs listed here: Reconnect, rehabilitation resources, teen parent day care and parenting programs. Could she comment on these programs? Are these all contracted services? What is the cost of these? How many children might be involved in these programs if there's an opportunity? Are they available throughout the province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To start, yes, the programs are available throughout the province. The Reconnect program is aimed at 12- to 18-year olds. It's offered in 33 communities across the province. The purpose of the program is to assist street youth who are at risk to reconnect with their families. Basically, it's to get them off the street and into a healthier lifestyle. The program can also offer skills training, counselling and referrals to appropriate services. We spent $3.5 million on this last year, and the budget is increasing again by about 10 percent this year. Last year 1,200 youth were assisted by this program.
The teen parent day care program is school-based. It assists young parents to resume or to continue their education by providing qualified day care services to their children. Support services are also provided to assist in developing parenting and child care skills as well as for counselling and skills training. These are contracted services.
The rehabilitation resources program is to meet the needs of students who have dropped out of school or who are having difficulty in school for social and/or emotional reasons. There are approximately 8,000 children who are assisted annually by this program. They are jointly funded between the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Education. In 1994-95 my ministry entered into 310 service contracts with child care workers to provide behaviourial management and counselling to students and their families under the rehabilitation resources program.
V. Anderson: The minister does very well. There's another program there called "parenting programs." If she could comment on the parenting programs, like Nobody's Perfect and others like that.... Are there other programs besides Nobody's Perfect, or is that the only program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The reason it is listed here is that this program is.... We talked about Nobody's Perfect and the parenting programs under general family support services. We have listed it here again, though, because often families begin to have parental conflicts with their children when the children become youth.
I'll reiterate for the hon. member that there were 81 contracts for service under these parent-training programs; the Nobody's Perfect program consisted of 13. There were 72 contract service providers providing those programs. We spent $5.9 million on parenting programs in the year '94-95.
V. Anderson: Before we move to the last part of that section, which is adoption services, I would like to back up. Since we are talking about children in care, there are a number of recommendations in the Gove report that were not carried over into the GAIN Act amendments. I'm wondering if we could look at those recommendations that are not in the GAIN Act amendments or the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act amendments that were brought forward. Those that were carried forward will be discussed in the act itself, but some of the ones that are not carried forward into that.... Could there be a comment as to why those were not carried forward?
Perhaps if I mentioned some of them.... I have the list here. I'm going by memory at the moment, but I think the ones that I've highlighted were not carried forward. If I am mistaken, perhaps the minister could indicate that. The one about the safety and well-being of children being paramount was carried forward, but one that I don't believe was carried forward was that the new act be amended to make clear that the right of children to early determination of decisions relating to them is paramount, and that the onus should rest on any other party to show that their interests should take priority over those of the child. I'm not sure that was carried forward over into the act, and if so, I'm wondering why not.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that you have the best of intentions in discussing this, but I do seek your assistance. This is dealing.... Really, it's outside the purview of estimates. I certainly wouldn't mind briefing the hon. member on future action arising out of the Gove report that may lead to legislation, but I'm ill prepared to deal with it at this point -- not to say that it's not an important discussion.
The Chair: I think the minister makes the point, and the member will respond accordingly.
V. Anderson: I will respond to it. Yes, I'd be happy to meet with the minister, and perhaps we can do it before the estimates are over. I think there are some elements that maybe should be dealt with here, because it is part of the work of the ministry in which we all have been concerned, and others have been concerned. But I do agree that we don't want to overlap in this particular area.
I would move over, then, into the last section, which has to do with adoption services. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on ministry adoptions. What is the budget for ministry adoptions? Where are we in the costs? And how many workers are involved in that program of ministry adoptions at this point?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Our adoption services will spend $3.49 million this year. There are approximately 26 field workers in adoption services; and then we have the central registry and services -- that's about another 14 people.
V. Anderson: Thank you. How many applications for adoption normally do we have on average per year, and how many children do we normally have to adopt? What's the ratio of that particular ministry?
A. Hagen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Hagen: It is with great pleasure that I ask the House to join me in welcoming 55 young students from grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 from Connaught Heights Elementary school in New Westminster, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Nottingham, and a number of parents who have come along for a day in
[ Page 15322 ]
Victoria and the Legislature. These are neighbours of mine as well. The school is in my own neighbourhood, so I welcome these young people as neighbours as well as people who are in from one of the schools. Would you please join me in issuing them a very warm welcome this afternoon.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll give you a typical month -- and it is a typical month -- and I'll extrapolate from that. In March of this year there were a total of 35 placements completed through both the ministry and private adoptions. So that's about 400 children placed a year. There are 789 applications pending. Among those applications there are 277 homes that are currently under study, and 359 homes have been approved through the home study -- for a total of 1,425 homes wishing to adopt.
V. Anderson: Thank you very much. On the registry, is there both an active and a passive registry at this point? What quantity of applications are coming to one or the other?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member is talking about the adoption reunion registry. Yes, actually, there's quite a detailed report forthcoming on that, and I'll be able to give you a complete statistical breakdown. But our registry is an active registry.
V. Anderson: Would the minister mind commenting on what she means by an active registry, for those.... What are the approximate number of persons who are applying, either adoptees or parents who have put their children up for adoption?
[5:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I accede to several members opposite with a greater expertise in this area. An active registry includes a passive element, but in the parlance of the day, one identifies it as an active registry. The active reunion registry in British Columbia was set up after the passive registry had been in place for a few years, and there was a huge demand for increasing information in the area of adoption. It's quite overwhelming, as a matter of fact -- the interest in our adoption reunion registry.
Let me just tell you some stats I've got for last year, though, in terms of the applications received. People putting their applications on the registry resulted in 2,232 matches just through the passive...just by the applications being made; 594 reunions resulted from the active searches done by the adoption reunion registry. The increase in requests for services over the last four years has resulted from the large number of adoptions that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. But I must tell you that advocates and reform groups continue to seek greater openness and access for adult adoptees and birth parents who request identifying information. The cost of the active reunion registry was approximately $900,000 last year.
R. Neufeld: This is part of the adoption regulations that I would like to see opened up further. Did the minister say that 2,232 reunions were completed through the active registry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, those were matches made through the passive registry; active searches resulted in 594 reunions.
R. Neufeld: Just so I understand fully, the active part of it is where the ministry actually researches and finds a birth parent or whatever, and if that parent wishes to meet, that will be facilitated by the ministry. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the adoption reunion registry is a contracted service; it's separate and apart from the ministry, and that was by design. But the assistance for the reunion takes place through the adoption reunion registry, and there are support services in place. I must say that the reports I have received -- and we are doing a complete review of the adoption reunion registry, which will be forthcoming in the next week or so -- are that it has been a very positive experience. The reports are that it has been handled in a very sensitive way. But the assistance of the reunion is through the adoption reunion registry.
V. Anderson: I'm interested to know that that review is being made, and that it will be available to us before too long. I know there is a lot of interest in it.
What is the process now for international adoptions? I know that for a period of time the provincial government was not very active or tied into international adoptions. Has that process improved itself? What is the organization and structure that the provincial government is involved with in international adoptions at this time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We have the Hague convention on international adoption, of which members opposite are familiar. Certainly the number of international adoptions are on the rise. I think I could probably provide you with that statistic about the number of international adoptions. There weren't any international adoptions during the month of March -- but there are some, and we'll find that annual figure for you.
The Hague convention talks about making the best interests and the protection of the child the paramount considerations -- and the fact that there should be some sort of international regulations around adoptions. Our federal government has signed on to the Hague convention. As you know, it's a multilateral treaty prepared by the Hague conference on private international law. It provides for regulation of international adoptions, but in order for it to be effective and implemented in Canada, each province has to change its adoption legislation and then sign on.
V. Anderson: Has the minister indicated whether B.C. has changed? Have they signed on and become a part of cooperating with the Hague convention and the federal government in the adoption process?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Canadian government announced that they had signed the convention in April '94. It will require a legislative change in British Columbia for us to comply with the Hague convention.
V. Anderson: Did the minister indicate what kind of legislative change would be required by British Columbia? Why doesn't our present legislation meet the requirements of the Hague convention and the Canadian signatory to that?
[ Page 15323 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The 1957 Adoption Act doesn't even address or recognize adoptions that occur outside the country. I wish the member for Comox Valley were here; I'd have her stand up and answer the question. But it's my understanding that we'll have to actually require children coming into Canada...for certain tasks to be performed on behalf of protecting that child, and do various evaluations to ensure the best interests of the child. Some examples that I know about immediately are, for instance, home studies and accumulation of medical records on behalf of the child born in another country. But there are implications in service delivery and also in regulation. If legislation were to come in making this review mandatory on behalf of the best interests of the child prior to the child being able to come into British Columbia.... Those are the legislative changes that would be required.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly, international adoptions -- and I know a number of families that have adopted children from the United States.... I was interested in what the minister just said. Are you saying that those children would have to go through another process if you were to update the legislation? I'm a little confused by her answer. I'm sure these people think they are citizens of British Columbia and Canada. Or maybe I totally misunderstood what the minister said.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The law would be forward-looking, not retroactive.
V. Anderson: Related to that question, there are many private adoptions where overseas children are adopted into British Columbia. Do we have a record of those private adoptions? Presumably they are recognized and are legal within Canada. What is the process of recognition of those adoptions? By what process are they recognized as legal children of those families for medical, social and other purposes within the Canadian system and within British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is an important issue, and I want to clarify a couple of issues for the members opposite. To the member for Vancouver-Langara, in the calender year of 1994, 38 adoptions of foreign children were completed in British Columbia, and 159 adoptions were completed outside Canada of foreign children who now reside in British Columbia.
To the hon. member for Peace River North, I want to assure him that the status of the family or the child in foreign adoptions that occur now would not in any way be changed. That would stand. Any future legislative change -- and of course, it's for this House to contemplate future legislative change and no one else -- would merely regulate and legislate the way those adoptions occur in the future. So I don't want to create any anxiety amongst any British Columbians.
Private adoptions are done by private agencies, but they have to be confirmed by the Ministry of Social Services six months after the adoption. We have the statistics on it for the month of March, 1995, from which we can extrapolate that 20 private placements occurred. All of the requirements for private adoption are there. I do admit that in this province, private adoptions are not regulated, but there is a great deal of good faith demonstrated in the area of private adoptions now.
V. Anderson: I'd like to raise one specific, without names, because it illustrates a concern. There are a couple of cases that I'm aware of where children were adopted -- one outside Canada and one inside, I believe; I'm not sure of the second one, but I know one was adopted outside Canada. When application was made in Canada to confirm that adoption, for some reason which we haven't been able to determine, the child was apprehended by the ministry. This has involved all kinds of court appearances and high money costs which have not been resolved. It has become a very complicated mess, and the child gets caught up in this process, which is hardly fair to the child. I'm trying to understand how this kind of process can take place. If the adoption was recognized outside Canada, why, when there was an attempt to confirm that adoption within Canada, did this get messed up?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, I can't comment on the specifics of any case, but let me make a couple of general comments. Being an adopted child or being a child of a natural parent doesn't preclude or guarantee safety and well-being. I know the hon. member opposite has made some excellent comments on that. What the Hague convention tries to do -- in my understanding, and the reason why there is a requirement for legislative change -- is to ensure, for the broadest possible reasons, that we are protecting the child, that the adoption is in the best interest of the child and that all of the home studies have been done beforehand, the medical information has been confirmed and the adoptive parents have had to go through a review process, so that as much as one can possibly ensure the safety and well-being of a child, we are doing that prior to the adoption occurring. But as to the specifics of an apprehension, I couldn't comment.
V. Anderson: Since this is a very critical issue for a lot of persons who would like to adopt, and since there are many children around the world who are looking for parents, is there process and planning underway within the ministry to move into the area of legislation that would tie into the Canadian and Hague conventions?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it's a very important question, so I don't want to slough it off; but we have the Lord report that addresses this issue specifically, first of all. And rest assured that if any changes were to be introduced, we hon. members would be the first to know.
V. Anderson: Could the minister comment on the assisted adoption program and what has been involved? What kinds of funds or services have been expended in that particular program?
[5:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The assisted adoption program came into effect in 1989. As of March 30 of this year, we have spent $950,000 on the program. It basically recognizes that there are physical, emotional and financial costs associated with raising a special needs child. Assisted adoption refers to adopting a special needs child, and to the assistance provided in order to ensure the well-being of that child. The funding goes toward the maintenance and services needed to help defray the costs of raising a special needs child. The fact of the matter is that without this special assistance, many special needs children would simply not be adopted. They often also have special needs in the educational area, and may require professional help from time to time for educational support. We contribute funding to the cost of their education, and we provide referrals to counselling, day care, special schooling, community
[ Page 15324 ]
programs and psychologists. Those are just some of the examples that the child and/or family may need. Some families that adopted children before the assisted adoption program was in place in 1989 are also seeking assistance. This is an area, though, where the regulations governing the program don't allow for retroactive support; however, we do try very much to provide support through other family support programs.
R. Neufeld: I want to go back briefly to the number of placements. The minister talked about 35 placements in March, and they were both private and government. She broke that down further to 20 private and 15 government. If I'm right so far, that would mean about 180, on average, go through government a year, if we use that as a benchmark. Are the homes that are approved, which now number 360, also approved by the ministry for private adoptions? What happens there? If not, we have now 360 homes approved for government adoptions where 180 are adopted every year. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we don't. As I say, in this province the process of going through a private adoption is currently unlegislated and unregulated. Where the ministry does come in in a private adoption is to confirm the adoption and register the adoption after six months. We're actually the only province.... We have minimum regulations. The applications pending in the homes under study are for ministry adoptions only.
R. Neufeld: When one does the arithmetic and starts looking at the number of homes that are approved -- 360, and 277 under study -- it's going to take a long time to fill those with children out of the ministry. Do we continue studying those homes until we place someone there? Is there a time frame? I know each home would be a little different, so there's obviously some variances. Let's say someone is waiting, on average, eight years from the time they apply until they get a child. I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven or eight years is pretty standard. Do we study that home through those eight years before the child is placed? Or does it take six months or a year to do a home study and that's stamped and it's fine eight years later?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is quite right about the length of the wait. But there is an anticipation when that single or family applicant would be becoming eligible for an available child, and it is as close as possible within that period of time that the home study is done.
R. Neufeld: I'm not going to belabour this very long, but if we've got 360 homes approved now and on average about 170 to 180 children that we're going to place in a fiscal year, why would we be so far ahead? I'm just trying to get a grasp of why we would study so many homes when we don't have the children to fill them.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a legitimate point. Of course, there is also the process for reviewing and updating home studies to make them as current as possible. We are encouraging assisted adoptions and special needs adoption as well. So there are applicants who will have home studies conducted in the context that maybe a special needs child would be available for adoption sooner rather than later. But the point is well taken that home studies have to be kept current, and the ministry makes every attempt to do that.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response, because if you add the two together, we're up to 640 homes and we're only going to place 180 children. I appreciate that when the minister talks about special needs children and trying to place those children -- and they are the most difficult to place.... The minister related that a bit to home studies. Do you study all the homes with the intent that they may want a special needs child? Or do you study them on how the application comes into the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The discussion occurs during the home study of what the waiting lists are and what the waiting period is for a special needs child, an assisted adoption, a healthy child, healthy infant, healthy toddler or a healthy older child. Then the adoptive applicant or applicants make a decision on how they would like to be placed on the waiting list.
R. Neufeld: In response to a question from the member for Vancouver-Langara the minister spoke about retrosupport for special needs children adopted after the year 1989. Can the minister explain what the difficulty would be with changing the regulations? The minister said that the regulations don't allow us to go back that far. When you want to change regulations, you're obviously pretty adept at doing that. You've done it before. We know that with adoption you changed one a while ago, just like that. So why couldn't you change the regulations to look after those people earlier on?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't change regulations, and regulations were not changed. I know to what the member refers. That was a clarification of policy. No regulation change occurred whatsoever, and I hope that the member fully understands that. Assisted adoption is a regulation. Regulations have to be brought to cabinet and they have to be published. The adoptions that occurred after 1989 occurred under the context of the regulations being in place. It's an obligation; it's an agreement between the family who adopts and the government. To go back prior to 1989 is technically not possible in terms of the current regulation. To change the current regulation requires money, and I would be more than happy to discuss that in the context of tight tax dollars. But as it stands now, we do what we can from other family support programs to provide for families who have a special needs child and did not adopt that child under the assisted adoption program.
V. Anderson: A number of things come up out of the discussion between the number of adoptive children and the number of homes that are studied. It seems to me that unintentionally we've missed the point -- the point being that it's in the best interests of the child that what home they live in.... It's not the best home that gets the child. If you are going to get a match of a child for the best home, there needs to be more than one option. A child may work very well in home A but may not work well at all in home B or C -- it's not a match.
Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, when you do home study, what kind of preparation is done for adoptive parents about the kind of child they might want to adopt or the kind of understanding the social worker may give to adopt...? Let me use a personal experience. When we adopted, we already had two youngsters, but we had 18 months of monthly meetings. We had 18 months of monthly preparation, even though we already had two youngsters. Collectively and individually....
[ Page 15325 ]
An Hon. Member: To make sure your home was fit, eh?
V. Anderson: Part of it was that, but part of it was to understand what kind of child would best fit into our home -- what kind of opportunity would best be provided for what sort of child. In that was a discussion of the opportunity of special needs -- of a child with a mental handicap, a child with a physical handicap or a child of mixed-race background -- so that period of working.... Perhaps this will be the final question for this evening. Could you explain for us...? Perhaps we'll leave it until after, because I know we need to explain and get an explanation.
Hon. Chair, I would like to move that we rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[5:45]
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:46 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 3:36 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $407,230 (continued).
L. Reid: Last day's debate, we touched on the welfare-to-work component of the Skills Now program. This afternoon I intend to work through the quick-response, small business and sectoral training components of the Skills Now initiatives.
Just to conclude welfare-to-work, there are a number of questions I still have in terms of the background training for the consultants. It seems to me that one of the components that may indeed set Skills Now apart from other provincial programs is the ongoing referral and assessment aspect of the program. A number of the materials that have been provided by your ministry come back to that particular component as something that we should be proud of, and it is being heralded as a useful component. I would simply ask for some clarification around that. If it is a useful component, I simply require the minister to make a few comments on how valuable that is to the program and what the cost of that ongoing assessment and referral aspect of the welfare-to-work component of Skills Now might be.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I did read some costs into the record the last time we discussed the estimates. I can talk about the rationale in terms of assessment and counselling. It's really something that's been lost in many respects over the years. I'm sure that 20 or 30 years ago you could get that at a Canada Manpower office. It's very difficult these days, and so we have trades....
I'm somewhat surprised, actually, about the approach people are taking with respect to those who have been caught by the high unemployment that's hit every industrialized country in the world. Even if we ignore the fact that in some of the non-industrial countries, the unemployment and poverty are massive compared to what we normally deal with in this country.... Our view is that one of the best ways of giving people an opportunity to break that cycle of dependency on the social safety net is to give them the ability to acquire the kinds of skills that will allow them to find and keep a job. In approaching that, many of the people who find themselves in this category do not have, for a variety of reasons, even some of the basic literacy skills that are required. Therefore it's important in assessing individuals that we first determine their current skill levels and what kind of training might be appropriate for them to give them those skills. We would then look at other components -- Skills Now, for example -- so that people out there in the job market can have a better ability to find work.
A fundamental part of that is not only the assessment of the individual in terms of skills requirements but some counselling in terms of what might be appropriate for them -- i.e., training. The two fundamental approaches we take are institutional-based training, which as the name suggests can be at the basic level -- such as adult basic education, life skills or university -- and on the job training side, the sectoral partnership programs, which I've talked about previously in these estimates.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's remarks. What I was attempting to get at in my question was what sets apart this particular Skills Now component. What I'm hearing from people in the field, and what your documentation would attest to, is that there is some type of referral and assessment that is ongoing. I'm interested in that specific entity, but I'm also interested in the cost attached to that program. Would the minister kindly comment?
Hon. D. Miller: On the program side, I previously cited the expenditures committed under the various programs....
L. Reid: I'm looking for that one in particular.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, assessment counselling and referral. In 1994-95 there was a budget of $2 million, with 9,000 clients. In 1995-96 we're looking at a partnership with the federal government. We're looking at developing assessment counselling and referral committees to direct projects in 11 communities, where an estimated 5,200 clients will be served. We're not at that point yet, but ultimately I would like to see....
[ Page 15326 ]
We have communicated with the federal government on the issue of co-location. There is a potential for pilots in B.C., of co-locating CEIC, I guess it is. I can't remember; I lose the acronyms. It's the federal government. The province, through Skills Now, in terms of some co-location.... You know, it's quite accepted in our society to talk about the needs of business and the sort of one-stop shopping approach through some of the centres that have been established in various communities. It makes just as much sense when you're dealing with individuals who are trying to get off the social safety net for them to have a one-stop shopping centre where they can get advice and referral to programs, whether institutional or directly into some on-the-job training.
There are 9,000 in assessment counselling, and some of these are approaches we're taking with the federal government. I'll just reiterate very quickly, so it's in Hansard.
Next we come to community employment training, which is to assist income assistance recipients to acquire basic life skills, literacy skills, job search skills and work experience: $33.32 million has been budgeted, and 13,856 clients participate in those programs. On institution-based training -- that's directly into an institution -- the figure is $14.47 million with 16,276 clients participating. Workplace-based training, including tourism workplace training and the forest worker development program -- which is something we put together, actually, when I was in Forests -- provides business with training credits for hiring or training income assistance recipients. New opportunities for employment are created: $3.56 million in workplace training, $4.08 million in tourism workplace training and $6.9 million in forest worker development. The client base is not as high, and I hope the member will appreciate that the costs increase in terms of the level of the program. There are about 600 clients in the workplace-based ongoing program, 440 in the tourism program and about 650 in the forest worker program. So you're up around 1,600.
[3:45]
In addition to that, there are other initiatives that we are working on with the private sector. They haven't been announced yet, but we'll make sure that the member is aware whenever those significant announcements take place.
L. Reid: In terms of individuals who will be involved in this counselling referral, it is my understanding that when these individuals came from the Ministry of Social Services, they were classified as rehabilitation officers and they are now training coordinators. Apparently this resulted in a reclassification of 23 job descriptions. The individuals, from my understanding, are doing the same type of work and dealing with the same client base. Could the minister comment on the cost of that reclassification?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the information, hon. Chair. I'll endeavour to get it for the member.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for offering to provide that information.
Still on the workplace space training welfare-to-work scenario that will unfold in the next 15 to 20 minutes, I want to touch on some other areas and frankly applaud the minister for the network of 57 trade advisory committees he set up to develop and create certification standards for industries. It seems to me that the greatest negativity expressed toward some college programs is that the industry believes they were not delivered in a timely enough fashion. They couldn't gear up quickly enough to respond to changing needs in the workforce. So when we talk about apprenticeship counsellors and the ongoing commitment to networking that's involved, it seems to be working very, very well. It's difficult without any measurement or long-term evaluation in place, but the material I've read to date suggests that that is the way to proceed.
I want to ask the minister a number of questions. There are 57 trade advisory committees. Are there more committees contemplated? What is the cost of creating that kind of advisory structure?
Hon. D. Miller: There may be other trade advisory committees as we develop new apprenticeable occupations -- something we are working on. The trade advisory committees have been a part of the apprenticeship structure for many, many years. I was a member of a trade advisory committee years ago: the millwrights' TAC, back in 1976 or 1977 -- somewhere around there. It was a few years ago when my hair wasn't grey.
The notion behind that is very simple. Representatives from the workers and employers come together on a trade advisory committee to consider a number of issues, mostly around the changes that are taking place in curriculum development. You can see how that has accelerated, particularly in the last ten or 20 years, as technology has almost brought about a revolution in some trades. The need to constantly ensure that the curriculum you are teaching is kept up to date, incorporates new advances in the trades and sends recommendations to the provincial apprenticeship branch for implementation is important.
One could always quarrel with the size, I suppose. It's always much simpler to do things if you don't have a lot of people advising you, because you can just go ahead and do it. But if you're going to do it right, you need to have the people from industry involved in that constant curriculum development. One of the things we just did recently came out of a recommendation of the trade advisory committee -- that is, to make the three automotive trades mandatory certification. That, by the way, was a commitment made back in 1963 by Leslie Peterson, the minister at that time of labour and education, which was strongly endorsed by the public and by the editorials of the day -- I remember reading a Province editorial.
We have finally moved to make those mandatory 32 years later. That has a double-barreled benefit. There will be a consumer protection aspect to this, which would be run by the Automotive Retailer's Association and the Ministry of Consumer Services, and there is a benefit for the individuals, because that ticket is like any other diploma or certificate or degree. It certifies that you are a fully qualified automotive, body or paint technician, and therefore those skills are identifiable and your skills are portable; they're transferrable. You can go anywhere in this country where they have the demand for those kinds of skills, present your certificate and have an opportunity to get hired. We'll be moving more and more.... That's a recommendation that came out of the trade advisory committee as a recommendation from the Apprenticeship Board. So they are an important part of apprenticeship training.
I think our challenge is to look at some of the new issues and ways of delivering training that are non-traditional and to
[ Page 15327 ]
ensure that the system does not become, if you like, bureaucratic or bogged down -- to ensure that it can respond fairly quickly to the kinds of demands that our economy is making.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. The first part of my question has been responded to. But the second part was the cost of operating those 57 advisory committees.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I can't break it out. The budget for the Provincial Apprenticeship Board is about $300,000, and that covers all of those costs associated with the TACs. I don't know if the member really wants to get a cost on each of the TACs, but it's $300,000.
L. Reid: Just for the 57 collectively, what portion of the $300,000?
Hon. D. Miller: I couldn't tell you.
L. Reid: For the record, if I could simply ask the minister to at some point provide me with the breakdown of operating the TACs, that would be most helpful in trying to get a handle on how the $300,000 breaks down.
In terms of the apprenticeship training opportunities that will be available to grades 11 and 12 students, that certainly can be supported. It makes perfect sense to create some opportunities and choices for young people as they move through the system. Again, in that we're in the estimates process, I'm interested in the cost of providing that program and making that program available to students who would be 16, 17 or 18 years of age, if the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. D. Miller: That portion, although obviously the ministries work together from a budget point of view, is in the Ministry of Education. I am, as the member may be aware, a very strong supporter of apprenticeship training. I am somewhat dismayed by the Liberal position on apprenticeship training. Perhaps the member might like to clarify her position.
There is a quote that says: "Apprenticeship programs are old technology, and it's not going to create jobs in the new economy." I am kind of puzzled by that quote from my hon. critic on the opposite side here today, which is about as wrong a statement as anybody could make. Perhaps the member just made it without knowing much about apprenticeships. Now that she's had time to reflect, she may in fact wish to clarify that.
L. Reid: I will draw the minister's attention back to the question. Even though the minister responded by suggesting that this cost was covered by the Ministry of Education, it seems to me that these individuals from the Ministry of Social Services have been transferred over to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and are now considered training consultants. It seems to me -- and help me out with this minister's logic -- that they would have some involvement in this apprenticeship program, at least in an advisory capacity. Again, that was my intention: to seek out the costs of that advisory structure. Again, the minister is not able to provide that information, so it makes further questioning difficult.
But let me continue: in terms of the cost of the apprenticeship program that is provided to grades 11 and 12 students, is the minister saying today that those costs are borne directly by the Ministry of Education? It's my understanding that those costs are borne by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
Hon. D. Miller: No. In terms of the delivery of training, that is strictly within the Ministry of Education. We facilitate placement of apprentices who come out and that kind of thing.
I'd just like to advise the member opposite that in fact my last question was an attempt to help her out. I now see that the Liberals have declined and that in fact their position is that they're opposed to apprenticeship training. I'll have no choice but to advise anybody I speak to that that is the case.
L. Reid: It must be so frustrating for the minister that this debate is not televised. He'd be speaking into the living rooms of British Columbia....
Hon. D. Miller: You guys are afraid to have me in the big House -- is that what you're saying?
L. Reid: I would love to be in the big House. I think this was your decision. Let the record show that this minister chose this small committee room as opposed to the large House.
Hon. D. Miller: Not me; you guys did. You ducked it. You didn't want to deal with me in the big House.
L. Reid: Absolutely not.
In terms of the ongoing apprenticeship debate, I appreciate the minister's comment that the costs of the instructional component are borne by the Ministry of Education. I don't take issue with that. What I was attempting to get at was the cost of the trade advisory committees. They obviously have responsibility to coordinate activity and consult directly with the Ministry of Education. I would assume that the 57 trade advisory committees would operate for both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. I can't imagine that there are parallel committees operating. Could the minister clarify this?
Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to explain. For the first time in British Columbia, we're making it possible for a student in high school to become an indentured first-year apprentice in a variety of trade opportunities. The Ministry of Education is working with the school boards. Naturally my ministry is involved, because my ministry has authority over apprenticeships -- to make students aware of career opportunities and give them the opportunity to acquire, in high school, the first year of an apprenticeable trade. The curriculum -- in other words, how that is taught in the high school, how much is on-the-job experience and how much is classroom experience -- is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Education. To the extent that my ministry has a great deal of understanding about apprenticeship training and is involved in assisting curriculum development and those kinds of things, we play a role. The spending authority is in the Ministry of Education.
The main point is this: regardless of whether it costs 50 cents or $200,000, young people now have the opportunity to graduate from high school with the first year of their apprenticeship completed. We will assist those young people,
[ Page 15328 ]
through the expanded field counsellors that we're putting in place around the province, in finding an employer who will take them on as an indentured apprentice to finish that apprenticeship -- another three years in most cases, sometimes another four. They will emerge with the specific skills that are in demand by employers in this province. That's what is important.
The other thing we've added in there -- money which, I think, will be very well spent -- is the $1,000 bursary that these students can now apply for. In other words, when they graduate and they get taken in by a private sector or even a public sector employer, they will be eligible to receive a $1,000 bursary. That can be used in a variety of ways; it is the apprentice's option. As I recall from my apprenticeship days, buying a set of tools to become a millwright, an automotive mechanic or whatever is pretty expensive. There are all kinds of things that this money would be very, very useful for. Most importantly, it's very useful in encouraging young people to consider these very, very good careers that are available, which we have not, in the past, provided much encouragement for students to get into.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of the goal of the program. Obviously the minister made reference to it in terms of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour consulting to the Ministry of Education. This ministry indeed has the expertise around apprenticeship. What is the price tag of that consultation?
Hon. D. Miller: It's a question that may have some rationale -- and history might discover that indeed it had -- but I don't think it has much. It would be very difficult to disaggregate those costs from my ministry. We have people in the field whose job as apprenticeship counsellors is to go out and work with people who are indentured to make sure that they're getting the proper servicing and to work with employers to try to find new opportunities. Now they have an opportunity to liaise with the schools to see if they can marry those students with employers. We can't disaggregate every cent we spend in that regard.
[4:00]
I hope the member appreciates that I think the question she's pursuing is rather pointless. I don't want to be too hard-nosed about this. Maybe there is a point that I've missed, and the member might be able to explain it, but you've got me extremely puzzled here.
L. Reid: Certainly it was not my intention to confuse the minister on this issue. It seems that these individuals are being paid by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour to liaise directly with the Ministry of Education around apprenticeship programs. That is what I have gleaned so far from this minister's comments. If indeed that is the case, surely some accounting goes on for the number of hours or the number of FTEs that would be responsible for coordinating the Ministry of Education programs with the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour programs.
I think this is a fairly basic accounting question, and certainly this ministry would have attached a price tag to that. It seems to me that they are accountable to the taxpayer for how the dollars are being spent. I can't imagine that this is a complex question. If the minister could kindly respond.
Hon. D. Miller: It may not be a complex question, but it is a pointless question. The point of what we are trying to do in this ministry is increase opportunities for training -- in this case we're talking about young people -- in career areas that have been identified. We know there are going to be skill shortages in certain trades; we know that for a fact. We also know that historically people in this province have sat on their backsides and simply allowed employers to import their skill needs. That has been the pattern in this province. We've never put the effort into apprenticeship and vocational training that we should have to give those opportunities to British Columbians. My job is to work for British Columbians first. Never in the history of our province have we had an accelerated, intensive program to increase apprenticeship training to give people those kinds of opportunities.
This ministry is cost-effective. With a modest increase of $200 million over two years, we have expanded opportunities right across the board with 9,000 new full-time spaces for our colleges and universities. We are very, very cost-effective. The fact that I don't happen to have disaggregated every quarter that we spend is meaningless. The point of this is the program and its delivery. What are the results? How many students are in there? What are the expected results? What do you hope to achieve? Those are the kinds of questions to ask, and I'd be happy to answer them. In fact, I did answer them. I read all those numbers into the record the last time we were here, so I won't bother reading them again.
If the member is absolutely insistent on knowing where every nickel went to, regardless of how pointless, maybe we can set her up with some accountants and she can spend a couple of weeks over in the ministry. I would suggest -- and really, this is good advice -- that it's pointless, futile and a waste of time. Let's get on with talking about policy and the difference between the Liberals and the NDP, because they are significant.
L. Reid: Frankly, the minister wouldn't know if his programs are cost-effective or not, based on his comments to date, because there really has not been sufficient evaluation in place. This is part and parcel of our ongoing discussion.
For the minister's recollection, this is a bigger discussion than how many seats have been created. This is whether or not students leave those programs with a reasonable set of skills. This minister is in no position to provide us with that documentation because his ministry simply hasn't looked at that in great detail yet. I hark back to the Blues -- previous debate where that was the outcome of our discussion. That ongoing evaluation was simply not done. In terms of my attempting to get the actual expenditure, yes, I do believe these are relevant questions. It's unfortunate that the basic accounting has not been done in terms of relaying that information effectively to the minister. Frankly, I would not blame that on your staff, Mr. Minister. I think they have probably done an outstanding job in terms of where we go with this discussion.
I'm attempting to get some measurement of all your programs and look to some kind of value-for-money audit as we move through this process. I have not found that information yet. The minister has not provided that information yet. I can only assume we will work toward some kind of reasonable debate this afternoon.
In terms of the discussion about voc-rehab counsellors or vocational rehab consultants, I certainly don't have an issue
[ Page 15329 ]
with the changing job description, reclassification and all that. I would be interested in the cost of that, and I believe the minister will at some point provide that. I'm attempting to get how best to proceed from this juncture in terms of this minister coming back to the table and providing us with something that is useful. At some point, I will take the minister up on his offer of an advance briefing in terms of the liaison between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. It seems to me that there probably is a great deal of excellent work going on. It's just that the minister is not able to share it with us.
I want to move on to the quick-response discussion. I believe that could be a very useful component of the Skills Now program in terms of gearing up a training program to respond to a recently identified need in the field. I would assume that the trade advisory committees would have a great deal to do with identifying that need and responding to the needs of employers in the field with some kind of in-depth information.
Perhaps the minister could break out the cost of the quick-response program. We can lead from there.
Hon. D. Miller: Just for the record, I want to repeat this. I said I wouldn't, but I want to repeat it because I want to make this point. We have had a history of neglect when it comes to apprenticeship training. Under this government, we now have 285 students in secondary schools in 23 school districts registered in 27 trades and occupations. That's expected to increase by 500 in September of this year. Those are results, hon. Chair, and opportunities for students.
I would remind you -- this is a public record -- that my hon. critic said: "Apprenticeship programs are old technology, and it's not going to create jobs in the new economy." That is the Liberal position. The Liberals can talk about wanting to find out where every nickel is spent, but we know for a fact from the policy paper put out by the Liberals that they will scrap Skills Now. They've said as much. They will undermine our public institutions by bringing in a voucher system. They believe in privatization. They are in a race with the Reform to see who can be more like the Ontario Conservatives, and they will be tripping over each other. We saw the first evidence today, and we will see it day by day by day.
Hon. Chair, do you know what their next measure is? This is an old saying, actually, in this famous book of insults....
L. Reid: Did you write it, or did you just read it? Hon. D. Miller: My forerunner, the person who occupied my seat before me in Prince Rupert, came up with a marvellous quote years ago. He said: "Didn't you know that the Socreds have now declared war on poverty? Phil Gaglardi is out there throwing rocks at beggars."
Hon. Chair, that's their next target. They're going to pick on the poorest people in our society and say that those people are responsible for all the economic ills and woes in our society. Indeed, hon. Chair, their solution is: "Give the corporations a tax holiday -- a tax break -- and we're going to pound those people who are relying on social assistance, because we know what the problems in society are." They've borrowed from all the worst economic thinking in this nation, on this continent -- the Newt Gingrich approach, the Preston Manning approach. We look forward with so much anticipation to those kinds of debates now.
L. Hanson: Why don't we ask the people what they want?
Hon. D. Miller: We will, my friend, ask the people what they want, and it won't be that long. The member for Okanagan-Vernon, who is so desirous of asking the people what they want, has already announced that he's not going to run again.
An Hon. Member: And has never faced the people as a Reformer.
Hon. D. Miller: That's right. In fact, hon. Chair, I was elected in my constituency as a New Democrat. I went and knocked on those doors, and people voted for me as a New Democrat. My hon. friend from Okanagan-Vernon has never done that. He walked across and switched parties without the benefit....
The Chair: Hon. minister, could we get back to the estimates.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I guess he assumed that the people didn't have to bless his walking across the floor and joining Reform. He just did it, and he never had the courtesy to go back and ask his constituents whether they approved or not, and he's never going to give them that chance.
The Chair: Hon. minister, I would like to draw to your attention that we are, at the present time, in the midst of your estimates, which is money and all that sort of thing. So let's hear some more from Richmond East.
L. Reid: I will again invite the minister to respond to the question. Just to refresh his memory, the question was the cost of the quick-response teams in the system.
Since I have the floor, I will also invite the minister to take part in some type of remedial reading course, because nowhere in that paper will he discover the voucher system being advocated. Again there seem to be some dilemmas around the post-secondary skills set possessed by the minister, and I would certainly invite his response to the question, which was about the quick-response.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I can say at the outset, hon. Chair, that quick-response training is an outstanding program that has received accolades from industry, from business, from working people -- indeed, from people across the country. I received a letter from the minister of post-secondary education in Nova Scotia, citing the Skills Now approach as being in the forefront in Canada.
It costs $2.5 million, hon. Chair. I think the point to make, though, with respect to the quick-response -- at least on the cost side, not the program side -- is that 40 percent of the costs were borne by government and 60 percent of those costs were borne by the private sector. It was indeed a marriage, if you like, between the private sector, their workers, the public
[ Page 15330 ]
sector in the form of this ministry and the public institutions -- community colleges, primarily -- which delivered a great deal of training that was put together under that program.
L. Reid: In terms of the partnerships with the colleges that the minister has alluded to, I would be very interested in some detail on what those partnerships look like and any breakdowns in terms of costs. This is the estimates debate; I appreciate this minister's passion for the direction of these programs, but I would appreciate some financial backing for the assertions that he's making.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd be quite happy to give a copy of all the projects. I've cited some in the past. The cost to government is, as I've said, $2.5 million, and that resulted in $5 million worth of expenditures. I'd say that's pretty cost-effective -- getting the private sector to come in and take about 60 percent of the costs. A total of 3,917 workers received training as a result of that approach, and 42 businesses participated in 85 projects. I'd say that's pretty good for a pretty modest budget of $2.5 million.
L. Reid: If we're talking about a $2.5 million contribution by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour matched by an additional $2.5 million by the private sector, could the minister give me some background on how that $2.5 million breaks out? Are we talking additional FTEs? Additional follow-up for the students on site? What is that $2.5 million covering?
Hon. D. Miller: I'll give the member one example that seems to illustrate the point: Canadian Woodworks in Prince George. I've given this speech in the House, I think, but I'll do it again. Canadian Woodworks -- actually a very nice firm, and I have a lot of time for them -- produce finished windows and doors. A lot of those are sold here on the domestic market -- very high quality manufacturing. They also sell what they call the blanks, the window stock, into the German market; they're competing globally.
[4:15]
They know they have to have the best quality, and they know they have to be competitive on cost, competing with European companies that have been in that kind of business for hundreds of years. In order to do that, they need a very, very efficient plant. One of the things that most often causes the failure of people in the value-added sector, who are trying to add value and drive production up the value chain, is that their efficiency leaves something to be desired. They have some good ideas, but they don't know how to organize work.
In this case, they've got a plant that is very, very sophisticated in terms of tracking the various pieces of wood. For example, as the wood is brought into the in-feed chain, it's coated. The way that plant operates, they can tell you where that wood is at any given time in the production process. That gives them an advantage in the utilization of their raw material; it gives them an advantage in terms of the market side. They want to keep getting more and more sophisticated, so they've brought some new computer technology into the plant. This will allow them to do that kind of tracking in an even more sophisticated way.
They brought this sophisticated machinery in. They wanted to train their employees. They looked at our quick-response program and said: "This is perfect." I think the total cost of that program was about $87,000 or $89,000. They then went to the College of New Caledonia, which has the expertise to deliver the training, and we put it together for a cost to the government of about $87,000 or $89,000. There are about 120 workers in that plant. We've utilized a public college to deliver the training, some of it delivered in a classroom at the College of New Caledonia and some of it delivered in the plant by people from CNC. Those workers got training in that new computer technology. The benefit for the employer is very obvious. He has a more highly skilled workforce. His plant therefore is more sophisticated and more competitive. The advantages to the individual employees are obvious: they acquire skills that they didn't have before. They can apply these skills to that workplace or take them to a different workplace.
I recall talking to one of the young fellows -- I can say that now; I can use the term "young fellows" -- who, as a result of this training, had his curiosity piqued by the opportunities that were presented to him. He advised me -- because we announced another quick-response training after the one I'm talking about now, and we used that location to announce several others that we did about a year afterwards in Prince George -- that his curiosity had been awakened. He intended to go on into CNC and take some more advanced computer courses because he saw an opportunity for permanent employment for himself in that field.
That's just a little side benefit that you don't even account for when you do these things, and it's one example of very modest cost. As I said, we do have -- somewhere in the bowels -- somebody who tracks these things. I've given you the overall: 85 projects, 42 businesses, 3,917 employees receive training, and everybody benefits for a very, very modest total expenditure.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's example. I understand that when we look at this quick-response program, it is either about plant closure or plant expansion. So I'm trying to ascertain from his remarks about Canadian Woodworks about re-tooling and needing new equipment, whether or not that company -- and let's use his example, since that may be the most direct way to proceed -- purchased the FTEs who were using the instructional component from the college, or whether they simply rented the space. Provide me with some sense of that $89,000. Was it to pay salaries? Was it to purchase instructional units? Was it to rent the college classrooms? How best are we to get a handle on the $2.5 million? I'm very interested in some further clarification around the actual expenditure. Certainly the minister's use of the example will allow us to highlight this particular program.
Hon. D. Miller: Sorry, I don't have that detail. I'll try to get it and forward it to the member.
L. Reid: Again, I will appreciate receiving that information. It seems to me that $2.5 million is still a reasonable sum of money, and to bandy about these dollars but not know how any of the amounts that I have questioned this afternoon are actually broken down leaves something to be desired in this debate. I have never found $2.5 million to be an insignificant sum of money.
As we lead into a discussion this afternoon of some of the small business partnerships, perhaps the minister could break down the costs of creating that program and give a status report on the future of that program.
[ Page 15331 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Sorry, I was preoccupied. I was just trying to figure out how much of the total budget of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour the $2.5 million is: two-tenths of 1 percent, I think.
Arguably, is the member suggesting that the program should not be in place? Is the member suggesting that this modest cost, which has levered at least an additional $2.5 million from the private sector and has seen almost 4,000 people receive training and has improved the productivity and the competitiveness of 42 businesses in this province, has somehow not been worth it?
It's scandalous for the member to even suggest that, and I don't know why the Liberals seem to be opposed to these innovative ways of delivering training to ordinary working people and to improving the competitive position of British Columbian businesses. For the life of me, I can't understand why they're so opposed.
Sorry, I missed that last question.
L. Reid: This member is asking this minister about accountability around expenditure. The grandstanding is humourous, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion. In terms of small business and the cost of the Skills Now initiative, has there been any measurement around this program? Perhaps the minister could begin with that.
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is a definite yes -- $1 million. The number of projects is 28. The number of workers is 4,305. The number of businesses is 1,115. This is another very good example of innovation and flexibility under Skills Now, which is working with the private sector in ways that benefit them, individual working people and the province.
L. Reid: I will draw the minister's remarks back to accountability. For me it's more than just these programs reaching out and touching individuals. There has to be some ability to measure whether there was long-term gain, employability beyond this retraining and a net gain to the taxpayer. I will continue to make this point throughout the debate: it's not enough that these individuals participated in the training; it's whether it had any meaningful impact on their long-term employment.
It seems to me that we continually come back to small business partnerships. I stand very strongly in support of small business partnerships with government, because it is a package.... If we're going to deliver education in a timely way, it has to be seen to be useful and relevant. The minister and I take no issue with this particular concept of whether or not we can merge forces and partner, if you will, small business, government and the education system. I believe that is the way of the future. What I want to know from this minister today is whether he believes he's on the right track and can back that up with some kind of documentation. We have his assertions that he's on the right track, but I think that as a taxpayer I have the responsibility to ask for documentation that supports this minister's contention around the usefulness of these programs. I take nothing away from the minister's comments in terms of how many people have been enrolled, how many people participated or the fact that there were matching dollars. Beyond that, there needs to be the next level of measurement in place. I would simply ask the minister to respond in terms of measurement of this program.
Hon. D. Miller: We are doing evaluations, as we do in all our programs. When they are available, we will make them available to the member.
L. Reid: I would ask the minister to commit to the record the time line for evaluation. When might the taxpayer expect documentation and some return on the success or failure of these programs?
Hon. D. Miller: We're constantly trying to advise the taxpayer about the program delivery that we do in this ministry. I think we will be making further steps along those lines. We are running some advertisements on the television to illustrate the opportunities that are available under our approach. They are good examples selected from around the province -- real British Columbians who are getting skills training that will lead them to the real world of work. The member may want to take some time to observe these television commercials. In fact, the quick-response training program that I talked about is the subject of one. In that particular television ad, you will see one of the owners of the plant talk about competitiveness and British Columbia being on the leading edge. They illustrate quite well the kind of approach that we're taking.
My own view is that we need to do more. I am working on some proposals so that we can advise British Columbians in a better way about the available opportunities and the government's approach to delivering post-secondary education and training to all British Columbians, not just those who go to university and college. I think there need to be more opportunities to advise the public about these programs. No doubt they may become the subject of some political debate as to whether various parties favour them or want to scrap them. Those are the kinds of questions I think British Columbians are interested in. I've tried my best to drag that information out of the Liberals, but so far I have had no success at all. They've refused to commit themselves to any kind of policy with respect to post-secondary education.
L. Reid: I ask the minister to hark back to this question: is there a real time line for these real British Columbians?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, in the Canadian Woodworks project I talked about, the training's completed; it's finished.
L. Reid: The question was about evaluation.
Hon. D. Miller: Go phone up the employer. Do you want me to give you his name? He was good enough to appear in a television ad saying: "This is a good program." The ultimate test: the marketplace has spoken; the employer says it's a good project.
Yes, we'll be doing some evaluation. I'm not certain exactly when they'll be ready, but when they're ready, we'll make sure that we give you as much paper as we possibly can.
L. Reid: It seems to me that if this program is being touted to the extent that it is -- that it is somehow going to save the workforce in British Columbia -- at the very least this minister should be able to provide a time line for evaluation. I'm willing to stand here today and accept the fact that the evaluation may not be complete, but I'm not willing to accept the notion that the government may report at some future
[ Page 15332 ]
point. Nor am I willing to accept the notion that this minister doesn't know what that evaluation looks like. This is about accountability to the taxpayer; this is not just about providing opportunities for this minister to grandstand. It seems to me that these are legitimate questions that deserve some kind of response. A factual response would be my preference.
In terms of where we are for small businesses and partnerships, I have spoken to a number of individuals in the province myself. But it is this government that is the tax collector, accrues these dollars and chooses to spend them in a variety of ways. The decisions about expenditure must be based on some kind of rationale for programs. If that's a quantum leap for this minister, I will accept that and phrase my remarks accordingly. But it seems to me that if you're going to make a case for expenditure, certainly you have a goal in mind, but you also have some measurement of that goal. Right now, I'm not hearing this minister moving beyond the glitz of a television commercial. That, to me, is not valid evaluation. A television commercial does not amount to the evaluation of a very expensive government program. It's pleasant and it may be even be photogenic, but it's not about this minister standing up and providing some reasonable documentation on the effectiveness of the programs.
[4:30]
The minister, being of at least average intelligence, has to know that the theme throughout my remarks in this debate has been evaluation. It's incredibly important to me to know how these dollars are spent and how this minister is measuring success. To have that somehow shunted off as being less than relevant is fascinating, but it's not terribly prudent. It's not exactly fair to the taxpayer, and it leaves tremendous room for comment on this program.
If the minister were the salesman for this program, he would have done his homework. He would have come to the table knowing the exact number of dollars each of these components will take out of the taxpayer's purse this year and next year. He would have had some sense of expenditure to date, and some sense of what that has looked like in terms of evaluation. This is not the first year of estimates for this process. When the lead time is well in excess of 12 months, it seems to me that there should be some ability for this minister to report in a factual way.
To return this discussion to the quick-response program, I don't take any issue with protecting existing jobs and reskilling the workforce, but both the minister and I can agree that there's a price tag to that. To understand more completely what that price tag is is a very simple request. If the minister could rise to his feet and perhaps comment on the costs of the programs, that would be most helpful during the estimates debate.
Hon. D. Miller: I have stated very forcefully that for a modest expenditure of $2.5 million, we have provided training for about 4,000 working people in this province. If you look at the public cost in 85 projects where 42 businesses participated, it was a little over $500 per individual. The program was oversubscribed, and we couldn't meet the demand. Anecdotally, when I talk to the business partners and the public sector partners -- the colleges -- they believe this program is outstanding. They think it's absolutely the right approach to take. They are excited and enthusiastic. They think it's cost-effective. That's anecdotal. We will do a more detailed evaluation to make sure that program delivery is what we expect it to be.
As the minister responsible, I am completely satisfied with this program. I think it's outstanding. I hate to stand here and say that, because it sounds like I'm bragging, but I think it's an outstanding program. I think the only question that people are interested in is: will the program continue, or, if there is a change in government, will this program go down like all the other valuable programs because the Liberal opposition is in a race with the Reform Party to see who could be the most extreme and draconian when it comes to public expenditure? Those are the issues. I hope this is my last word on this. We will make sure that the member is informed about any evaluation we do.
L. Reid: When?
Hon. D. Miller: When it's available; I think I said that. I have nothing to hide. I am proud of this program. I would like the members of the opposition to go out and tell people about this program. I'm happy to give them information. I'll give them all the information they could possibly carry, if they'll make one commitment: when they go out in the public, they must inform people who haven't heard about these programs, because it's so important that we get the word out. If they make that commitment, the minute there's new information available, we'll send it their way by the truckload.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise at this time in the debate. For the record, and as the minister is well aware, I have supported the Skills Now program, both publicly and in the Legislature -- at least the principle of it.
I'd like to get some clarification from the minister. There is some confusion out there about how the program is going to intertwine with our college system. Are the Skills Now offices that we see opening around the province evaluating and educating students as to where their best opportunities are? Is that the full role of these offices? Is it the colleges' mandate to take it from there and educate those students in the roles they choose? In that process, will an education plan be put forward along with a financial demand that they would have to meet when meeting their objective of achieving a job, which will provide them with a better scale of living than what they presently enjoy?
These are some of the questions I get on a day-to-day basis from constituents who are unemployed and looking for opportunities to educate themselves. I'd like some insight from the minister with respect to those issues.
Hon. D. Miller: There are 35 initiatives. I think the one you're really asking questions about is the community skill centres initiative; from the way you framed that question, it seems to me that's really what you're getting at. As I've previously indicated, we have plans for 20 around the province. They will not, unto themselves, be educational institutions. They will not be a school of any description, although they will have within them some of the technology -- computer terminals, interactive video linkups -- that we think are important.
[ Page 15333 ]
The smaller communities where the economy is in transition do not always have the ability to deliver training. They have been the primary but not exclusive targets of skill centres -- and we do have a ranking criteria. They will not, however, be stand-alone, separate educational institutes. Rather, they will be centres organized and managed by a local board comprised of representatives from the business and labour communities and the education field -- community leaders, really.
That board has a responsibility to put together a plan. Primarily what they're looking at are the requirements of employers and working people in that community: what skills are employers looking for? Where are the skill gaps and mismatches, if you like, in that community? What kind of skills do individuals need to be participants in our economy? The board would then broker with the public institutions -- primary the colleges, though not exclusively, since they have the opportunity to do that with universities where the course delivery is appropriate -- to delivery the training needs that have been identified in the community.
In parts of the province there has been a little resistance on the part of the community colleges, because they see this as somehow a new level of institutional delivery. It's not, and we're working hard to reassure them of that. If anything, I see enhanced opportunities for the public colleges to deliver the kinds of training that's been identified at a community level as making sense for individuals and employers. As I said, where instruction is not available in the community, that training can be delivered with the interactive video linkups that are now part of the skill centres.
The one example I cited in the House was Kitimat, simply because I opened the centre there, where we were linked up electronically with the Open Learning Agency. The Open Learning Agency, as part of its mandate, does a great deal of training delivery. The bulk of that training is still, to this day, in videos that they physically mail. They'll put together a package of course material on a particular subject, which might be comprised of books and videos, and then that's mailed to a particular centre to be utilized by people in that centre. Using the interactive video linkage, you don't have to do that anymore. The paper material has to be there, but the instructor is there in front of you as if he or she were there in person in the classroom.
An area where we will probably see some activity is TQ upgrading. There's a need now, particularly with the move to make the automotive trades mandatory certification. There are obviously people working in that industry who do not have the TQ, trades qualification, yet have worked there for many years. We are developing a system through Vancouver Community College so that they can take a refresher course prior to writing the trades qualification examination, if they qualify with the years of experience in the trade.
That certainly was the case in the pipefitting trades where they will have -- I think at the end of this year -- mandatory certification. In other words, if you're going to practise the trade of pipefitter, you have to have that trades qualification.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, there are lots of people working in industry who don't have it, and it will give them.... That's just one example of the kind of training that can be delivered at the community level.
There has been difficulty in my own home community of Prince Rupert, where -- I can't remember how many -- I think about half a dozen tradespeople in the local mill wanted take a refresher course in the pipefitting trade. They looked around. In fact, they got hold of me and said: "We've looked all over the place; we can't find a packaged course. We've gone to BCIT; we've gone to Vancouver Community College." I think they found something at North Island College. You can appreciate that that's just one small example of the kind of training that might be delivered.
I'll use Prince Rupert again, because I happen to be familiar with it, but I'm sure this is apropos of the rest of the province. There was a fairly protracted lay off at one of the B mill sites, which was down for quite some time. The company and the union used that opportunity to provide training in about four different areas: pulping technology, welding.... Well, you know what they were doing? They were delivering the training in some nook or cranny somewhere. With the community skill centre, at least they would have the opportunity of having a place where that training could be delivered. In this case, it was delivered by BCIT.
So those are a couple of examples of the kinds of training I'm talking about that could be delivered through a community skill centre. It is not intended in any way to supplant the role the community college plays in delivering post-secondary education in the various regions of the province.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up on a couple of things. I believe the minister suggested that these facilities would be placed in communities where education facilities were not what they should be. I would submit that one has been placed in Prince George, and we all know what facilities Prince George, with UNBC and CNC, has to offer in terms of that regional area. One would have to question why the government chose to open a community facility there rather than to work with the college, and perhaps the minister might want to expand on that.
Hon. D. Miller: Just to correct the record, the Prince George centre was in place prior to the development of the Skills Now program. It had been put in there through a partnership with the Open Learning Agency, as had the centre in Burnaby. The other centre that comes to mind as one that is in place and has now been designated a skills centre is School District 40 in New Westminster. They have a centre in downtown New Westminster that was, in many respects, a community skills centre. It wasn't called that; it was called an education centre. The sign clearly indicated that it was there on the part of the school district. The philosophy was the same, and the approach was quite the same, working with the Open Learning Agency. It was in the centre, in an area of town where people knew it's there. It has that feeling of accessibility, and, like the description I gave of the skills centres, it can deliver training directly in the centre by brokering that training from either a private sector or a public sector partner.
[4:45]
So those three were actually in place before we announced our program, but we have designated them and provided some additional funding to come up to the kinds of criteria that we have established for these community skills centres. Interestingly enough, as we are working with the communities that are developing new skills centres, some of
[ Page 15334 ]
the discussion reaching my office or my ears I think speaks to a bit of a gulf in our society. One of the comments I've heard, which surprised me a bit -- these came from working people more than the business side was: "We do not want our skills centre to be located in a community college." When you explore that a bit, it's obvious that a lot of working people simply don't see the college as being relevant to their experience. That is interesting, because we want our community colleges to be very broadly based, where people see the opportunity to acquire different kinds of training. I don't think that's consciously developed, but it's there.
I don't know what the feeling is. I don't know if you ever posed these questions: "What do you think, as ordinary working people, of the community college in your communities? Do you think that's a place you might go to get some further training?" I suspect you might get the answer that I seem to be getting: "No, it's a bit alien to us."
These skills centres, if anything, will improve the relationship, the feeling or understanding that ordinary people have about community colleges in their regions. They should be all things to all people; they should be accessible; they should be open. We want to have the kind of atmosphere where somebody could simply be walking by the door, look up, see a community skills centre sign, walk in the door and get some kind of service. I don't think that's necessarily the kind of atmosphere that exists in public colleges. I think people consciously say, "I think I'm going back to college to take a course in X," and then go through whatever process and apply. We want to have the kind of accessibility and visibility in the community where people can walk in off the street. Someone will then start assessing their needs, looking at counselling, voc-rehab retraining, that kind of thing.
L. Fox: I appreciate those points of clarification. I was aware, however, that that facility had a contract with the Open Learning Agency before and did take some initiatives. However, the program under Skills Now has expanded substantially. Although I haven't heard great concerns from colleges, I have heard more concern from the constituents over whose role was what and so on.
The other issue I want to touch on briefly -- the minister didn't address it, but I did outline it in the first issue -- is whether or not the folks who enrol in retraining through Skills Now can apply for student loans or if there is some other process. If so, do they have to supply some kind of educational plan along with an economic or financial plan so that we can be assured that their objectives, if achieved, ensured that the individual had an opportunity to acquire a job in the specific trade they chose to enter?
Hon. D. Miller: If you go back to some of the descriptions I've used for potential program delivery, they suggest more of a group approach than an individual approach.
Yes, student loans where they are applicable, where people meet the criteria and where the training is of such duration.... I would suggest to you that that training wouldn't necessarily take place in a skills centre. It would more likely be a community college, in which case all criteria with respect to student loans, etc. would apply.
Funding for training is normally delivered either by my ministry or by the federal government. Although the federal government has pulled back this year to the tune of about $30 million, we would still expect that to be the case. In other words, most of the funding for the delivery of training and support for the individuals taking training would come from established funding sources, either federal or provincial.
We would like to see more support by businesses where there is a particular program.... A program can be two-day program or a four-week program. We would like to see employers commit to the fundamental notion of constant learning and, where it's appropriate, support the employees who are taking the training -- lost wages, for example. If the training has to be delivered off the job and can't be arranged outside of working hours, then presumably there's a wage cost to the employee to take that. We'd like to see the employer be a participant in supporting the overall cost of delivering the training.
L. Fox: One further question. The minister talked earlier about the TQ program and mentioned the licensing or upgrading of mechanics. I recognize that outside of the dealership network, in the repair shops around the province, there often isn't the ability for mechanics to upgrade their skills. But usually within the new car sales dealership structure, it's a prerequisite, normally by the corporation, that the staff stay up to date and pass exams on a annual basis to fulfil the requirements under the franchise. The only concern I have here is the accessibility in respect to that, because many of these folks are limited in terms of time frames.
The other concern I have -- and I'd like to hear the minister's comment on it -- is that it could drive more of that business underground. We already have substantial back-yard mechanic enterprise in the province of British Columbia, driven there by the GST and now the PST on labour. That has driven much of that thrust, to the point that we have a lot of back-yard mechanics being done. I recognize that that's one issue and that educating those who are still trying to compete in a regular repair shop that is not a franchise facility is another issue. I wouldn't mind hearing the minister's comments on whether or not they've given that some consideration.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I actually don't think it will. I suspect that most consumers are somewhat like me. Everybody hates to drive that car into a garage and inquire about the cost for a regular servicing. But if you're going to maintain a car, you've got to do it. The way technology has changed the automobile.... I mean, I know how I feel. I normally use a dealership for that reason. I want to be sure that the person who's working on that investment -- and automobiles are a pretty sizeable investment these days -- is qualified to do the work.
When I was young and had lots of time on my hands, before I got into politics, I used to do it myself. I'm sure lots of members may be acquainted with that. I don't know if life was any simpler in those days, but I know cars were. They're not now.
Small enterprises still have the ability to be completely up to date. When we made the announcement a couple of months ago, I did a bit of a photo op in a garage in Vancouver. I don't know if members have seen the photo; I could make arrangements to have one distributed to everybody. But I have a pair of blue coveralls on with "Dan" on the side. We're leaning over a 1956 Thunderbird, and we quite consciously did that because we wanted to promote the notion of training in these technology areas.
[ Page 15335 ]
Again, I go back to young people, and that's where I have a particular feeling that they need to understand that these are good careers. This was a pretty small garage, but the owner assured me that all their mechanics were trade-qualified. They'd all gone through the apprenticeship program and had the TQ, and they had a regular process of maintaining and becoming up to date on the introduction of new technologies.
The other thing that's changing a lot of that is, of course, the communications technology. Where previously the sheer burden of paper could overwhelm you, nowadays with access using computer technology, information is available. You can punch it up on a keyboard. That has enhanced the opportunity for information about technological change to get out. I don't really have any concern that it will contribute to the growth of the underground economy.
The Automotive Retailers' Association has some work to do with the Ministry of Consumer Services, because the other benefit, besides the benefit of individuals having the TQ, is that the consumer will know. Ultimately, when they get their system fully developed, presumably there will be a sticker on the business establishment, which will signify that the mechanics there are fully qualified and fully licensed. The consumer is then free to choose. If they want to go to someone's back yard, there's nothing you can do to stop them. I have never believed that government should get in people's faces that way and tell them what they should do. We will have a system that the Automotive Retailers' Association and the workers have worked hard to put together.
I had dinner with three reps from the Automotive Retailers' Association. One fellow, Pat Magnolo, who has been working at this for years and years, was delighted that the government had finally moved on a recommendation that had been around since at least 1963.
L. Fox: I have one further question for the minister. Actually, the topic came up while I was in my office listening to this debate, believe it or not. It was around the issue of apprenticeships, the accessibility of apprenticeships and, I guess, the lack of available opportunities for apprenticeships over the last number of years.
In our region of the province -- and the example of a mechanic is a good one -- one of the real problems was that there weren't any chairs available in the college to accommodate apprentices. A number of individuals had job opportunities but couldn't get enrolled in the apprenticeship program because there weren't enough chairs available at the local college. The minister is well aware that they have to go for one month a year to that college in order to go through the formal part of their apprenticeship. Can the minister tell me what kinds of discussions around this new initiative with the college system have taken place to have more chairs to accommodate apprentices?
Hon. D. Miller: That is a problem, actually. In the early 1980s, when the recession really hit British Columbia and there was quite a severe downturn in many of the primary industries, they looked at their operations and, to use the language that was used in those days, cut out a lot of so-called fat. A lot of people lost their jobs; it was a pretty tough time. They also cut back on the amount of training they were doing, and the number of apprentices dropped quite dramatically. At one time we ran about 20,000 a year; when I came into this current job, we were down to about 14,000. We'd seen a decline of at least 6,000 apprentices on an annual basis.
[5:00]
In order to deliver the training, colleges need to be able to anticipate a fairly regular number of students coming into the system. Because the system had in effect ramped down, we'll now have to ramp it up again. I don't suggest that that's going to be flawless or seamless. My objective as a minister is to get the numbers up and, to the degree that it's possible, to get a regular number of apprentices coming into the first year. That will allow colleges in particular regions to determine which training programs they can deliver.
In my own area, Northwest Community College used to run millwright training courses in first, second, third and fourth years. During the recession, those courses were discontinued. Apprentices from my area had no choice but to go down to Prince George to CNC. That's a great cost to the individuals; it's cheaper if you can deliver the training closer to home. As we bring the numbers up, we will see a more regularized number of people in the system. The community colleges can then plan in a better way which courses they want to offer. Obviously they don't all offer all the apprenticeship training that's being delivered in the province.
In my own case, when I went through the apprenticeship program in the late 1960s, I attended the old VVI -- Vancouver Vocational Institute -- which is now encapsuled by BCIT. That's where I went, when I was in an apprenticeship, every year for four years to take my four weeks of training. At the end of my apprenticeship, the first year of millwright training started at Northwest Community College. People only had to go 90 miles down the road instead of 500. We'll see that come back up as the numbers come back up, and hopefully it will regulate.
I want to say two more things here, because I think they are important. First, I would hope that all members -- and I am somewhat appalled.... I understand this game of politics. We're the government, you're the opposition, and you feel your job is to attack us. Sometimes issues that we should consider mutually arise. The advice I get -- and I haven't had it confirmed -- is that the federal government is going to withdraw the first two weeks of training support for apprentices in school. The implications of that are very, very bad. I would hope that somebody would actually challenge a cut in government spending rather than always say it's not going far enough.
Second, it's my conviction that all of us in British Columbia -- government, business and labour, and there are some impediments on the labour side which I'm dealing with as well -- have a responsibility to offer those apprenticeship opportunities to British Columbians and a heck of a lot more than we have up to now.
It is absolutely true that the forest industry in British Columbia has never trained for their own skilled trades needs. It has always had the luxury of importing its needs. If there was a gap, we import it. And I say that's not good enough. Those going into the trades should be young British Columbians coming out of high school, perhaps with a couple of years in the workplace to get that kind of experience. We should have, in this province, a system whereby it's automatic that those opportunities exist so that some students coming out of school will have some degree of certainty that they can go into an apprenticeship.
We're also going to expand the number of new apprenticeships so that we can create new opportunities. This notion
[ Page 15336 ]
that we can just go around the world or to other parts of Canada or wherever and hire for our own skilled needs is dumb. We're trying to change that, and I would hope this would have the support of both opposition parties in this House, because it's long overdue.
I was criticized for using a bucket to advertise this. We brought a little bucket from Poland, a galvanized pail. We put some nuts and bolts in it and sent it to the media. The message was: "If your car isn't serviced by a qualified tradesperson, it's just a bucket of bolts." Somebody shot back: "Well, the bucket is made in Poland." I'll import hundreds of buckets from Poland at five or six bucks each -- I don't have a problem with that -- but the days of importing skilled tradespeople from other countries and not giving the opportunities to British Columbians are over in this province. We are going to entrench in this province a system of apprenticeship training that nobody, I would hope, will try to undo in the future.
L. Fox: I want to make a very brief comment on this particular aspect of it. First, I'm pleased the minister acknowledged that in the lack of apprenticeship opportunities, it wasn't only business that was a problem. Indeed, there were some problems in certain labour institutions around the province of British Columbia. I recognize and agree that the forest sector has not lived up to its obligation in terms of training British Columbians. In fact....
Hon. D. Miller: Nobody has.
L. Fox: The minister says nobody has.
As an overall category, if you take category by category in the province, I would agree with the minister. I myself got my start in business through apprenticeship. I understand the values; I served my five-year apprenticeship. I understand what that gave me in terms of becoming an individual who contributed to society instead of being dependent on society. So I understand the value of an apprenticeship.
In fact, only two weeks ago, at the forestry trade show in Fort St. James, I laid out the challenge to industry and labour, because we do not today have one apprentice in any sawmill in Fort St. James. I know, the minister knows and I think all members know that we have a huge unemployment lineup and on the other side we have a job vacancy list for skills, and we can't put the two together.
Let me tell the minister another story that I'm very concerned about, which happened recently in Prince George. We turned out 25 qualified nurses, but in a recent hiring by the Prince George Regional Hospital only two British Columbia nurses were hired -- while a large number applied -- and 21 came from Alberta and Saskatchewan. One of two things is happening. Either we're not educating our students to meet our needs or we have a real problem in the hiring practices of our government institutions. Particularly when that institution is playing a role in educating those students, why wouldn't they qualify? That to me is a major problem in our educational system.
When we enter into this contract with young people to educate them, and there are job opportunities in the province of British Columbia, yet they're not educated well enough to achieve that job over somebody educated in Alberta and Saskatchewan, we've got a problem. I don't know how we address that, but I've been trying to. I'll tell the minister this much. In discussions with both the college and the hospital, they've agreed. They now have a six-person committee -- three from the hospital and three from the college -- to try to address that issue, because we can't address it in politics. I feel very, very sorry for those students who invested two years and large sums of money, and see a local job.... The member for Cariboo North may well be aware of this, because there were two from the community of Quesnel who were in on that application and were refused the opportunity. I think they have to understand that when we take on a contract with our youth or with any of these individuals that we're putting through, they have to meet the qualifications necessary to achieve job opportunities in British Columbia so that we can compete with individuals coming from other educational facilities across Canada and throughout the world.
Hon. D. Miller: I couldn't agree more with what the member has said. To underscore that, I had a meeting on Saturday in Prince Rupert with representatives from the University of Northern B.C. and the community college, where the public could drop in and discuss issues relative to post-secondary education. One of the things we talked about was the need for more people from the region to get specific training. We happened to talk about forestry.
It's true to say that in some parts of the province, some forest districts are viewed as less desirable and some as more desirable. One of the issues that I recall dealing with as Minister of Forests was the staff turnover in some of these so-called less desirable areas. It was always a surprise to me, because some of those are in my constituency and I think they're highly desirable places to be. The member knows what I'm talking about.
What better than to have opportunities for local young people to get skills as forest technicians or whatever? I'm not singling anybody out, but maybe there could be some emphasis on aboriginal people getting the opportunity for that kind of training. I think the tendency is there. People who come from an area are less likely to view it as undesirable and more likely to stay around. They have a network of family, friends and support that makes those communities home. I think that's the way to go.
In the case you've cited, I'm not certain that it's a lack of qualification on the part of the curriculum; I don't know. But the member makes a point. As the member is aware, we can't put barriers on Canadians. I know he's not suggesting that. If a local college is turning out people in the nursing program and the local hospital is hiring people with those qualifications, you would think it would be a natural fit without discriminating against anybody from any other part of Canada. It makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. I commend the member for the work he's doing and hope that he has some success. If there's anything I can do to assist or facilitate, let me know; I'll be happy to help. I think that training people in the area they live and in the specific skills that are in demand makes a lot of sense.
I also want to say that we used the Vanderhoof school district as one of our pilot areas. It is a very progressive school district that pioneered a lot of the in-school apprenticeship training. I want to commend both the school superintendent in that district and the district forest manager for being very proactive in developing the forestry program in the high school. I was delighted to support it when I was Minister of Forests with some real cash, and that's ongoing. We're
[ Page 15337 ]
developing that provincial curriculum; it will be available around the province. You have a very good model in the Vanderhoof school district. It's worthy of support and worthy of being talked about as a model for other parts of the province.
L. Fox: I'm really pleased to see that the minister is supporting that initiative in Nechako. Believe it or not, I was mayor of the community in 1987, when the then minister announced the municipal forestry initiative. Do you recall it? That's what prompted the forestry program, in which the minister of the day allowed for a $75,000 initiative per community to initiate forestry programs. The community turned that over to the school district. It hired a qualified forester and started to design a program. It started out from a very small initiative and has grown into something which I'm sure the whole education system is going to benefit from. The minister is quite correct: that school district has been very proactive in many areas of education. The previous superintendent was a man of many ideas. He had some good people under him, who could make those ideas work. He contributed a lot to our educational system.
[5:15]
I wanted to go back to one thing, and that is the idea of students acquiring student loans and doing up an educational package in terms of setting out goals and objectives -- what their targets are and how to identify their whole program along -- and that being a prerequisite to them applying for loans. The minister will be -- and I'll just get into the student loan issue very briefly -- well aware that student loans and defaulted student loans are growing substantially. One would have to wonder then, if you looked at it from a banking perspective, if you were a banker making the loan....
The first thing that I as a businessman have to do to acquire a loan is develop a business plan. I think we're losing out when we don't ask the students to develop an educational plan, because through that process we could do a lot of counselling and directing. Maybe students are choosing educational paths which are not in their best interest; they may have difficulty acquiring a job with their education. We see a number of folks come out of our post-secondary educational system. They have a certificate or a degree, but have very little opportunity to get a good-paying job in the discipline they have chosen. Then they have to go back to re-educate themselves in another area in order to get a job that can improve their opportunities.
It seems to me that if we're really going to address this situation, we should require the student to develop an educational plan, which would allow some flexibility. I'm not suggesting that they say: "This is what I must be at the end of it." Getting partway into the program, the individual may decide that he or she is not suitable for that particular type of training and may not want to venture in. We should allow that; we should allow that second sober look at their future. As we all know, we spend an awful lot of our lifetime working. I think one of the faults today is that not enough people are in jobs they really enjoy. Too many people are in jobs where they've achieved a good salary and are stuck in that because of other commitments. They would like the opportunity to diversify but aren't able to. I think we could help students, and I think we could reduce the instances of student loan defaults if we asked students, on application, to develop an educational and business plan in terms of how that loan is going to be administered and repaid.
Hon. D. Miller: We are encouraging a lot more thought under the Skills Now initiative: career planning and the efforts in the K-to-12 system for more work experience. I think some of that discipline will flow out of that. I want to register just a bit of a concern about going too far down that road. Taken too far, there could be an element of statism here, which I don't think the member would want to support -- that is, the imposition of the state's view on individuals. I don't think we would ever want to get in a position where the state would simply say: "We will only support public education where the end result is absolute employability." I just touch on these areas as ones that I would have some concern about.
It's interesting, you know, that you raise a question about default. We have gone out for requests for proposals from the banks to see if they can manage our loan portfolio in a better way. We'll get the answer back on that. We think there's some savings there, so we're following through on that. The other issue is: should we distinguish between institutions? For example, the default rate for private institutions versus public institutions is very, very high. Should we come out with a policy that says that where an institution has that kind of default rate, we're not going to provide student loans for people going to that institution? That may be something the member may want to ponder. I would expect that some might disagree with that. At any rate, these are the kinds of issues we are looking at, because we are mindful of the budget implications. We want to spend our money wisely and get the best value for it. The member has raised some good points.
L. Fox: I'd like to comment on that issue. As I said earlier, when a student invests a number of years and dollars.... Even though they've acquired a student loan, they've still had to invest a lot of their own money and they've had to go out and work in order to support that student loan in order to make it through their program. If, at the end of the day, that student is not qualified to compete with other training institutions that have educated.... Let's take a discipline. If one is educated as an electronics specialist at BCIT and one in the public system somewhere else, and the public institution is bringing out a higher level of students who are more able to compete with the other student and have better qualifications, I would have no problem with the minister taking some action. That institution hasn't lived up to its contract, which that student enrolled into in order to achieve an education where he or she could compete against other students.
As far as I'm concerned, when you enter into the educational process, you take on a contract with that facility for them to provide you with an education that allows you to access a job in a chosen career within some reasonable considerations in terms of what the opportunities are out there in reality. But if you can't compete with other students and get a job, I have no problem with some consideration around what the minister said. I believe there's an obligation for an institution, when it takes on the contract, to provide that individual with a good, sound education. The minister is shaking his finger at me, and I'm sure he'll come back with some comments on that.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Oh, I'm sorry. Anyway, I'll let him. I didn't realize the time, so I will sit down in my place.
[ Page 15338 ]
Hon. D. Miller: I'm simply throwing this out for some people to think about, but I think the member is mixing two issues here. One is the qualifications, if you like, or the quality of education the individual receives at the institution. The other is the fact that when we track institutions, in terms of students who go to those institutions and who take out student loans and repay them, they have a very good experience. Most of the students who take a loan complete the course and pay back their student loans, and that's the way the system should work.
Some of them have a very high rate of default, as high as 85 percent. It suggests that the institution should be working with the student in terms of managing the issue of repayment and the rest.
My only point -- leaving aside the quality of the education, the courses taken and everything else -- is that if all the students who go to that institution have a very high default rate on student loans and over there we have another institution where most of the students pay it back, you have to ask yourself why. You have to ask yourself whether you should set performance standards for institutions.
The second point is the education. Just a caution: I think that up to 30 percent of the students who go to BCIT have a BA. They have already been to university. Clearly, some of them have been supported by the taxpayer through Canada student loans or B.C. student financial assistance, yet they're going to, as they say, add value so that that degree, the BA, is something that will get them employment. They'll go back for a two-year program there or at another community college. It's more efficient, of course, if you say: "Well, rather than getting that BA, you might be better off going directly into BCIT or some other community college under a two-year program and getting a skill that's marketable." You can't force that. In other words, you can't force it in an absolute sense. There are two issues here, but they overlap. I think the member has provided some interesting observations, and I thank him.
L. Fox: I want to provide a little clarification. I understand what the minister is saying. My concern is that we haven't done enough review as to what is causing the student loan problem. The minister says he's looking at it, and I'm sure that at some point he'll bring some of that back to the Legislature and let us know what the problems are -- why we're seeing the defaults rise to the point that they're now at, which, as I understand it, is $75 million. They were at about $20 million in 1991. I'm really pleased that the minister is reviewing that and asking the questions. That's the first step that must be done if you're going to find a solution. First, you must identify the problems. I'm pleased with that.
I think we'll find that we have a number of concerns out there. I don't think there are too many students who are defaulting just for the sake of defaulting and walking away from a responsibility. I really don't believe that. Some students who have had difficulties paying have approached me. They want to pay, but they're not employed, or they're not fully employed in a job that pays enough.
The second part of it is, I believe that the banks do not live up to their obligation. They know full well that they can come back on the government without making any real effort to collect that loan, so they're dumping it back in the government's lap rather than living up to their obligation. I think there's a whole host of issues out there around this.
I really don't believe the minister is going to find too many of these students reneging just because they think they can walk away from responsibility and start fresh. My experience is just the opposite: they're trying to do everything they can to meet their obligations in terms of repaying that loan. I just want to make sure that is on the record.
Hon. D. Miller: I agree with the member. As I indicated earlier, we have gone out with a request for proposals to the private sector -- the banking industry. It would involve risk-sharing. In other words, they would manage the portfolio in exchange for the guarantee of a certain risk payment. The feds have done the same thing, by the way. I don't know if the member followed that debate, but there was something in the press fairly recently.
We want to ensure that students are protected, but we do feel that in working with these students as individuals, the private sector or the banks have a better opportunity to manage repayment -- particularly if the banks then have the opportunity, for example, to handle all of that individual's business. There may be other loans, like car loans. There may be a variety of financial relationships that should be managed as a package.
You're right; right now it's easy. I think if two payments are missed, it's: "Oops, over to you." We don't take any risk.... The banks are notorious in Canada for not doing that. Nonetheless, we'll see what kind of response we get on our proposals. We think there are savings in the millions there. Again, I agree 100 percent with the member. We want to make changes where those savings are realizable but at the same time maintain a system that says to students in this province, particularly young people: "If you want to further your post-secondary education, we think it's important you do. The statistics are there and show very, very clearly that the higher the post-secondary training you have, the better your opportunity to find and keep employment; it's absolutely solid." We're really encouraging that. We want to make sure that there's a support system in place so the students can get that.
[5:30]
Of course, we're fighting what I think will be potentially damaging to the system: the loss of a significant amount of revenue through the elimination of the EPF or established program financing transfer. We used to have a deal in this country in terms of equalization between the haves and the have nots. That post-secondary transfer payment was pretty important in terms of the post-secondary budgets in the provinces. Now it's going to be chopped off, and that's going to have an impact on our ability to maintain all of the parts of the system that we think are so important.
Hon. Chair, I think we probably are at the hour where the committee could rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I so move
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]