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 2)
Volume 20, Number 25
[ Page 15339 ]
The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 89 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance on the order paper. I'll read it for the House:
"Be it resolved that this House reject as unfair and unreasonable all of the recommendations made by the Judicial Compensation Committee established under section 7.1(9) of the Provincial Court Act and tabled in the Legislature on May 11, 1995, and that this House substitute the current salary, benefit and other remuneration arrangements for the period January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997."
PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES' COMPENSATION
Hon. E. Cull: In December 1994 the Attorney General, in accordance with the Provincial Court Act, appointed a judicial compensation committee. That compensation committee has conducted its review and made recommendations with respect to salary and compensation for judges. In accordance with section 7.1(9) of the Provincial Court Act, the Legislative Assembly may now by resolution reject one or more of the recommendations and fix the remuneration allowances or benefits that are to be substituted, or it can do nothing, in which case the recommendations of the compensation committee come into force. The government, with this resolution, is rejecting the recommendations of the committee as being unfair and unreasonable in the current economic climate, and it is substituting the current salary, benefit, pension and other remuneration arrangements for the period of January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997.
The recommendations of the compensation committee would provide, over the three-year period, an 11.48 percent increase in salaries on a compounded basis. The committee also recommended a joint study by the Judicial Council of B.C. and the government of the pension provisions. Finally, it recommended extending coverage for life insurance and long-term disability to age 70 for all judges.
The last increase that judges received was on January 1, 1992. It included a salary increase of 9.6 percent, as well as some significant benefit improvements. The base salary is now $118,000, and B.C. judges currently rank third in salary level in Canada. The present entitlement for pension plans is one of the best provincial plans for judges. This competitive salary and benefit package is, I believe, a clear indication of the value and importance that we as the government, and, more importantly, that we as a society place on the necessary work that is performed by judges. It's a key aspect of our ability to attract and retain the services of the qualified people we need to fill these roles.
No matter how important the job, government must still be cognizant of the costs. The public is calling on the government to cut costs in all areas of its activities. In particular, they are calling on those who are paid by the public, from the public purse, to restrain their demands for wage improvements, just as they have had to do.
If the current salary is extended to the end of 1997, as the motion recommends, salaries for judges will have increased by 1.84 percent annually. This compares well with current wage increases provincewide, including private sector wage increases of 1.27 percent over the last 12 months.
Some have argued that this action amounts to an attack on the independence of the judiciary. Far from that -- it is not -- it's a confirmation of the supremacy of parliament when it comes to deciding budgetary matters. The judiciary is and must be independent of the legislative and executive branches, but when it comes to how tax dollars are to be spent, the Legislature must have the final say.
The proposed compensation levels are fair; they are within the intention of the legislation. I call on all members of the House to support the government in rejecting a compensation package that simply cannot be afforded.
J. Dalton: I might lead off by saying that the Minister of Finance is brief to a fault, and I will be making some comments later about that -- among other things.
The first point I would like to make is: why is the language in this motion so inflammatory? To use the terms "unfair" and "unreasonable" is, I think, overstating the case -- to put it mildly. It's unwarranted. I do not understand why this minister has chosen those words to deal with this admittedly important issue. I would like to think that the government would reconsider in the future, if it cares to, using such inflammatory language.
The second point I would like to make is that I think we all have to wonder why the Attorney General is not on his feet presenting this motion. It was his bill last year that brought in the amendment that resulted in this committee's report. It was the Attorney General on May 11 of this year who tabled the recommendations of the committee; I have that report in my hand. The Attorney General, under the Provincial Court Act, had the authority -- as he did -- to appoint two of the five members of the committee. The Chief Judge of the province appointed two. And the four of them collectively appointed the chair, who, of course, was Chuck Connaghan.
The other point I would like to make about the Attorney General, before I make some other maybe more general remarks, is that really it defies all logic. Even though this is a finance matter and the Finance minister in her very brief remarks in defending this motion made those comments, quite frankly, this is obviously an Attorney General matter. It's shameful to this government that they don't put that minister on his feet initially. I'm hoping he will speak later. He certainly should be encouraged to do so. The Attorney General should be on his feet defending this motion.
Let's spare a few moments and consider the record, recently, of our Attorney General. I said already that it was his bill last year. It was his report on May 11 of this year. Two-fifths of the committee is his. Yet he's not defending this. Quite frankly, I think this is more evidence that the Attorney General is out of the loop. The Attorney General is certainly not running his ministry.
As we have pointed out incessantly over the last two or three weeks on the Douglas Lake issue, the Attorney General of this province has a responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer to deal with these issues. Again he's dropped the ball. He dropped the ball on Douglas Lake, clearly. In fact,
[ Page 15340 ]
what did he tell this House one day? He told this House that as the chief law enforcement officer he doesn't tell the police in this province what to do. What an amazing remark to come from the chief law enforcement officer!
The Attorney General told us last week, in response to a question I raised about a farcical liquor distribution tape that cost $45,000, that he hadn't seen it. He saw it later, and he did, I believe, admit that the tape had some questionable merit to it. Forty-five thousand dollars down the tubes, and the Attorney General once again is out of the loop.
The other day, in committee stage, we were dealing with the Class Proceedings Act, and on the second section of that bill I asked the Attorney General a question about why non-residents are excluded from proceeding with a class action. He said that perhaps -- and I paraphrase -- the bill was badly drafted, but we'll have to live with it and then maybe revisit it next year.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Hon. member, the Chair hesitates to intervene in your debate, but I would remind the hon. member, and all members as well, that we have before us a specific motion that is the subject of debate. While I appreciate that a reasonable latitude is required at this stage, I would hope that the member would relate his remarks to the motion before us from time to time.
J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I respect your ruling, and I will certainly keep those remarks in mind.
Now, let us return to this motion. The Minister of Finance has rightly commented on the argument about the independence of the judiciary, and it's disturbing to us and the official opposition to hear the suggestion that Provincial Court judges are to be equated with civil servants in the general classification. Obviously the independence of the judiciary has to be an argument when we address this motion. Obviously, as well, the judges of this province -- and understandably so -- have reacted to the minister's motion rejecting all of the recommendations of this committee.
[6:45]
Chief Judge Robert Metzger said last Friday in a news release: "The total rejection of all the recommendations, based apparently on lack of wage increases to government employees, causes me serious concerns about the government." And he goes on in that vein. He talks specifically about judicial independence and the interference with that, and certainly there is at least an implication raised through this motion. I would remind all members, certainly the Minister of Finance and hopefully the Attorney General, that to reject this entire report may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We will have to see whether, in fact, that is the case.
So I made the point about the independence of the judiciary. The report, among other things -- it's not just dealing with salaries and benefits -- points out that there's an anomaly in the benefits that Provincial Court judges receive. I am looking at page 23 of the report. It's noted that judges are appointed to age 70, and the association of provincial court judges has expressed concern that exclusion of Provincial Court judges who sit beyond 65 from the present life and long-term disability insurance scheme creates "two classes of full-time judges within the province -- those who are under 65 and have those benefits and those who are over 65 and do not. This clearly discriminates against the older judge." That, I would suggest, is an important aspect of this report which -- keep in mind -- the government is rejecting in total.
I wonder why the government has not chosen to at least comment on that. All we've had from this minister -- the wrong minister -- is just to cast the entire report out, discredit it entirely. I think that's shameful. Clearly something is missing here, or I would suggest that this government hasn't thought this one through very well, if at all. I almost had the impression, when the minister was defending this motion briefly, that she had been in Kamloops last weekend.
Let us look at the motion that the Minister of Finance has presented before this House, Motion 89. I think we must examine the rejection of all the recommendations of salary and benefits plus all the other recommendations that I've commented upon, including pensions. I think we have to look at it in light of the fiasco we've dealt with recently -- in particular our Finance critic. I'm sure all government members read with delight Vaughn Palmer's column of last Saturday in which our Finance critic rightly pointed out to this same minister at the conclusion of her estimates that she truly fouled up the Bonneville cheque issue. The cheque was not in the mail; the cheque has never even arrived, and it's certainly not cashable. She got that advice. Now she's before this House trying to sell us another bill of goods. I would say that the Bonneville Belle across the floor has totally mismanaged her budget, and she has certainly mishandled this particular issue.
The issue that is really before this House -- and this motion illustrates it -- is the mismanagement of public funds by this incompetent government. Let me remind the members of the health accord. What happened to "patients first"? We must think and reflect on the ridiculous health accord that this government put together.
Let us remind this government -- particularly the Attorney General, because he represents a Vancouver Island riding -- of the fiasco behind the Island Highway deal. More friends and neighbours deals, more under-the-table shenanigans going on with this government, and it results in more mismanagement of public funds.
In particular, let me comment about the fair-wage giveaway that this government has presented. Just on Saturday last, in my own community of North Vancouver, in a community project that this government has endorsed by a community grant, the estimate is that the cost of that project will be increased by $60,000 because of the fair wage -- some $60,000 to build a community track.
Here we have another minister leaving. I hope we'll hear from him later. I guess we'd have to say that the one minister who is missing at the moment is the guy who would shovel the money out of the back of a truck. Where is he? Where is the Minister of Employment and Investment, who would shovel money out of the back of a truck? That's what these turkeys are doing.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly we are having some difficulty focusing on the matter before us. I would urge all members to keep in....
[ Page 15341 ]
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, we will have to be guided strictly by the rules of debate, which require that we restrict our comments to the matter before us with very little, if any, latitude. Members can recognize the difficulty if we allow too much diversity on the matter before us. I think the member who has his place realizes this, and I would just ask him to try to keep his comments as close as possible to the matter before us.
J. Dalton: I must confess that it is a little difficult to keep one's cool when you consider the abysmal track record of this government over the last three and a half years. However, we are addressing a financial issue, and those are my comments, hon. Speaker. I'm talking about the mismanagement of this government when dealing with everything it touches. The taxpayer must lie awake at night shuddering to think that this government is in charge of a $20 billion operation. That's a nightmare.
The point is that as far as I and the official opposition are concerned, this government is guilty of mismanagement, and so now, of course, they're crawling before the House, taking a well-thought-out report with many good recommendations in it and tossing the entire thing out the window.
That brings me to another point. As I commented earlier, this government rejected the entire report. They rejected the recommendation about other benefits, which I've already commented upon. Just as importantly, let me direct the government members -- if anyone is tuned in over there -- to page 21 of the report, dealing with pensions. This committee was an independently appointed committee -- although, again, the Attorney General, of course, appointed his side and the judges appointed theirs; they came up with an independent chair. I think they've come up with a well-thought-out report. On page 21, the committee comments on pensions, and they recommend that the Judicial Council of B.C. and the government of B.C. undertake a joint study of the existing pension arrangements for Provincial Court judges to determine the extent to which changes in the existing pension program are necessary to meet the dual goals of attracting and retaining superior candidates to the Provincial Court, and that this study be completed by December 31, 1995.
I don't know whether the government has some fear about such a recommendation; it has nothing to do with the salaries and benefits -- directly speaking, at least -- that are before this House in the form of this motion. I would like to think that the government would entertain -- and I am going to now move -- an amendment to this motion. The amendment to Motion 89 will read as follows:
"Be it resolved that this House reject the recommendations made by the Judicial Compensation Committee established under section 7.1(9) of the Provincial Court Act and tabled in the Legislature on May 11, 1995, with the exception of the pension review recommendation on page 21 of the report, and that this House substitute the current salary, benefits and other remuneration arrangements for the period January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997."
We have copies for both sides.
On the amendment.
J. Dalton: Let me first speak to that amendment, and then I will conclude. I must remind members opposite, particularly the ministers who are supposedly defending this motion, that they have omitted to comment on the good recommendations contained in this report that are not necessarily financially based. Let us remember as well that this government initiated this report, and I think....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. Minister of Social Services to please conduct her dialogue....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, this is not the proper way to communicate, unless you have your place on the floor. Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Dalton: Returning to the amendment, there are many good recommendations in this report, and this motion simply casts the entire document out. There is no consideration of the sidelights, the highlights, or any other lights in this. It's very convenient for this minister to stand on her feet and say: "Thanks for the report, but we reject it." Has she read the report? I doubt it. Has the Attorney General read this report? I have my suspicions, because there are good things in this report. This report was prepared by five hard-working British Columbians who looked at all the issues, visited many people and had many representations presented to them. But it's a very simple thing for the minister to get on her feet and say: "We're the protector of the public purse, and the whole thing is out in the paper shredder." That is hardly the way to implement -- or at least consider -- what I consider to be some well-thought-out recommendations.
So let me give my impression of what this government is up to and why they dropped the ball in this one. Certainly we are responsible -- as a parliament, as a Legislature -- to defend the public purse, and we don't quarrel with that. And my amendment doesn't quarrel with that, as the members opposite will agree. We agree with controlling spending at all levels. I cited examples where this government has done anything but that: the health accord, the fair wage, the Island Highway and the Bonneville fiasco, and we could go on and on and on.
I must ask if this resolution is politically as well as fiscally motivated. I don't necessarily provide an answer to that, but I think we've discovered recently, as of last Friday, when another leak occurred in this government -- in this party opposite.... Of course, the leak I'm referring to is that of Brian Gardiner, the secretary of the NDP, in his memo to John Walsh of May 31. I'm just going to make one observation from his memo. They're looking ahead to the next election: "Significant organizational effort is being put into having local MLAs benefit as much as possible from announcements flowing out of this plan." Of course, they're referring to that ridiculous plan we asked about earlier today.
There we are. That's the theme of this.... This is a wounded beast; it's a cornered, wounded beast, and it will strike out at any moment. It's using this well-thought-out report in a very shameful political way. It hasn't read the report; it hasn't considered the report.
I'm hoping that the government will support a well-reasoned amendment that doesn't trash what this minister
[ Page 15342 ]
wants to trash. It supports her motion, and it adds something positive. Certainly the people of British Columbia are looking for any glimmer of hope -- something positive -- from this government, because they have not seen it in three and a half years. It's long overdue that they saw something positive from this bunch.
I'm hoping that all members will support this amendment. At that point, I will take my seat.
[7:00]
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, as I said in my introductory remarks, one of the best provincial plans for judges right now is the pension benefits that are already in place. While I might be somewhat persuaded of the reasonableness of the study, I have to speak against it. Because if the intention is to keep the compensation benefits where they are until the end of 1997, to support this amendment at this time would not be reasonable; it would not be fair.
Amendment negatived on division.
On the main motion.
L. Hanson: I know that the reason the committee was appointed in the first place was that last year this government adopted a change to the act that required the appointment of a committee. It required that committee to do certain things: in effect, analyze the wages and benefits that judges were receiving and come forward with a report, to be tabled in the Legislature as to whether it was adopted or rejected. I find it a little hard to accept the fact that the minister has chosen, even though it says in the act.... I think I can quote from the act here, or the changes to it. It says: "The Legislative Assembly may, by a resolution, passed within 21...days after the date on which the report and recommendations are laid before the Legislature under subsection (8)...resolve to reject one or more of the recommendations made in the report as being unfair or unreasonable." It seems to me that it is a little bit of an overkill situation to suggest in here that the report is both unfair and unreasonable. Which one is it: is it unfair, or is it unreasonable? I think the minister has overkilled, if you will, in the motion, although I do acknowledge that there is a need to table the report and respond to it.
I find it passing strange for a government that has put in place in British Columbia what is commonly referred to as the fixed-wage policy. It's strange when the government has agreed to a situation on the Island Highway that has increased tremendously the cost to the citizens of British Columbia, when they have entered into a health labour accord that has increased the cost to the citizens of British Columbia and when they've increased the numbers in the bureaucracy -- there's a tremendous number of new bureaucrats, something in excess of 3,000. Then you look at the patronage appointments that have been made. One gentleman who was fired from the Premier's office had a soft landing in another ministry in a job that appears to have been almost created for him at a salary of something like $120,00 or $130,000 a year, and now we're talking about restricting the salary that we pay to the judiciary in our province. I find that is hypocritical, and the approach is incorrect.
We are a party who believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe in the need to relieve the burden the taxpayers already suffer in this province, and we will support the recommendation for that reason and that reason only. But I find it very hypocritical for this government to come forward with all the other things they have done and suggest that they're doing this because of the financial condition of the province. I think our position is the position that would be supported by most British Columbians whenever we get that opportunity to ask them the big question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just a few comments. First of all, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano was asking why the Minister of Finance introduced the motion. It's clear that any member of the House could have introduced the resolution should they have chosen to. He also asks why the motion contains the terms "unfair" and "unreasonable." Unfortunately, the member didn't read the statute prior to making his comments, because if he would read section 7.1(9)(a), he would find that's where that reference is.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In her motion the Minister of Finance can use either word or she can use both, and the government made its decision.
The decision of the government not to accept the recommendations of the judicial compensation committee has raised questions -- not only here -- concerning whether the government fully appreciates the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is the hallmark of a free and democratic society. Individual liberties we all enjoy depend to a significant degree on the independence of the judiciary, and our courts have a long and proud history of independence, which we must all jealously guard and protect. The decision not to accept the recommendations of the committee in no way compromises this independence.
It is the responsibility of all governments in Canada to set compensation levels for the judiciary. This government strongly supports the process currently in place for recommending changes to the compensation levels of Provincial Court judges. This process is separate from the way in which salary and benefits increases are dealt with for all government employees, and it recognizes the independence of the judiciary. We are acting in accordance with that process.
Regrettably, we are now in a time of limited financial resources which require government to make tough fiscal decisions every day. Given our limited resources, we have decided that we are not in a position to fund the recommended salary increases and enhancements to benefits that were recommended. Because this government has been fiscally responsible, we have not had to reduce the compensation levels for judges, as was the case in Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Alberta.
While one should be careful in comparing salary levels between provinces, I am pleased to advise that British Columbia Provincial Court judges remain among the highest-paid provincial court judges in the country. British Columbians are indeed fortunate to have men and women of the calibre and dedication that serve the public every day as Provincial Court judges. This court is faced with increasing workload and complexity in the types of cases that it hears, and it serves the public well. I am confident that notwithstanding the government's decision not to accept the recommendation of the
[ Page 15343 ]
Judicial Compensation Committee, the women and the men of the Provincial Court will continue to serve the public in the highest tradition of their office.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to enter into this discussion, particularly because at one time I served on a legislative committee looking into reviewing the remuneration to retain the independence of the judiciary within the provincial sphere. There is certainly a great deal of concern with this and, unfortunately for the government, there is again the rank odour of hypocrisy in this situation. There was no compelling factor to encourage the government to be fiscally responsible when it took on some 3,500 to 4,000 new employees within the civil service, in a percentage out of all proportion to the increase in population of the province.
There has been instance after instance where political appointees have received higher remuneration after being removed from the Premier's office -- into a non-position in the Ministry of Health, for example. Without any significant credentials, they have achieved wages significantly higher than provincial judges. It was a very credible committee that was set up. It is clearly evident that the judges are not members of a union; they are not members of the B.C. Federation of Labour or the construction trades unions that have a great deal of leverage on this government.
Here we have a group of judges who have to have independence from the executive branch -- individuals who have a history of gaining experience from the legal profession to serve the citizens of British Columbia. Recommendations have been made by a special committee -- selected, I might add, by the government, not by the Members of the Legislative Assembly at large -- to ensure diversity of opinion and diversity of perspective to enhance fairness. This committee has come out with recommendations. Within the scope of the recommendations, the government has decided to overturn all of the recommendations as being -- as my colleague for Okanagan-Vernon indicated -- unreasonable and unrealistic.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the government of the day has no leg to stand on with respect to this. There have been mentioned a number of expenditures that have been made by the current government because of their friends and insiders, never mind the political hacks who enjoy the privilege of power, the remuneration and, I suppose, the pension benefits that go along with it. But here are men and women in British Columbia, dedicated to serving all of the people of the province, doing an admirable job, recognized by the recommendations here. We have a government that instituted the fixed-wage policy imposed on the construction trade unions, where there were absolutely no complaints with respect to the level of wages, except that it was based on the union arm. We've enjoyed significantly higher costs in the construction projects, be they in Transportation and Highways or any public building, and the government is adamant that they will continue on that. Then the hypocrisy of rejecting a recommendation by a committee that they in fact structured -- it's unrealistic and it's unreasonable, never mind the recommendations.
I heartily support the recommendations, knowing some of the principals on that particular committee as being most reasonable and most fair, and I think that the government must understand and accept them as well.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the question is Motion 89: "Be it resolved that this House reject as unfair and unreasonable all of the recommendations made by the Judicial Compensation Committee established under section 7.1(9) of the Provincial Court Act and tabled in the Legislature on May 11, 1995, and that this House substitute the current salary, benefit and other remuneration arrangements for the period January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997."
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
[7:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour; and in Committee B, I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
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).
V. Anderson: Just to finish up where we left off, we were discussing adoptions, and I was querying the minister about the review that was done of couples or persons who wish to adopt. We talked about home studies. I'm wondering if the minister would indicate to us what the nature of the home study is, and what kind of preparation is given for the home study to parents who are planning to adopt. Also, what kind of matching is undertaken between the actual child to be adopted and the parents who are doing the adopting?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll have to get that information for you. I checked. I could give you some general information which would prove that you've received general information on the minister's knowledge. I am going to get you the specific policies around home studies for adoptions. V. Anderson: Just as we finish this section, one of the questions.... We went over the items that are in the BC Guide. Are there programs that were discontinued because of the evaluation that the ministry did during the last year? Are there new programs that have been undertaken that were not listed in the BC Guide under this particular section?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the BC Guide indicates that our ministry is still responsible for skills and training, and you know that that has been transferred. It still lists us as responsible for supported child care, and that has been transferred to the Ministry of Women's Equality. For instance, it doesn't include, as we mentioned before, the child protection consultation program announced last year, which is the program that we work with in conjunction with the Children's Hospital. It doesn't mention the Vancouver action plan, for instance, which is a specific allocation of local resources for street youth in Vancouver. It doesn't mention the transfer of services to...the handicap realignment that we are currently working on; and it doesn't mention the program coming over from the Ministry of Health for services to the mentally handicapped.
V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister might just comment briefly about those four programs that are added in.
[ Page 15344 ]
As I understand it, one is the Children's Hospital program, one is the Vancouver action plan, one is regarding handicap realignment, and the final one I didn't quite.... Mental health, I gather. Could she indicate a little bit about those programs? What are the costs of those programs, and what number of FTEs would be working on those four programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate that it is difficult going back and forth, but we have canvassed this -- all of this -- before.
The child protection consultation program and the 50 new.... Well, we have 14 within the child protection consultation program at $1.5 million. It's working with the B.C. Children's Hospital child abuse team to provide a direct pipeline to front-line workers. At the same time that we introduced this, we put 50 more child protection workers on the front lines throughout the regions. There will be specialized support via a team of pediatricians, psychiatrists, child psychologists and hospital social workers.
The Vancouver action plan is for street youth. It is the $1.8 million that we announced for the development of local resources and services to get street kids involved in the sex trade out of the sex trade, off the street and into safe resources.
The realignment of services for people with disabilities.... Sorry, that's just one program; I called it two. It's the movement of the responsibility for people with mental handicaps from the Ministry of Health into the Ministry of Social Services -- a transfer of $5.7 million and 50 FTEs.
V. Anderson: With particular regard to the street youth program of the Vancouver action plan, is there a thought that this kind of program, or one similar to it, might be taken into other cities throughout the province that also have large youth problems, like Victoria, Prince George and other places? Is that program envisaged for cities like that where street youth have been having similar difficulties?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to predict future policy, but let me just say that there's an interministerial committee examining the issue of children in the sex trade -- and of adults in the sex trade, for that matter. They have been examining the Vancouver action plan with great interest. There is certainly a need for similar programs in other centres in this province; for instance, Prince George, Victoria and Kelowna are the three that come to mind immediately as far as street youth involved in the sex trade are concerned. We are doing some funding at the local level to deal with this; but in terms of a concerted action plan with appropriate funding, that is a matter that is to be considered in the very near future by cabinet.
[7:30]
V. Anderson: I can appreciate the necessity and desirability of programs for youth who are involved in the sex trade. But what about programs for youth in these communities who are not involved in the sex trade? Are there similar programs that they can be involved in? I think it's unfortunate if they can only get programs that deal with street youths who are involved in the sex trade.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As we canvassed before, $27.2 million is being spent on services to youth; one example is the Reconnect program, which is targeted specifically to street youth to reconnect them with their families at home or to have them leave the streets, at least, for a healthier lifestyle. Both Prince George and Prince Rupert, for instance, have a very strong Reconnect program. We also have community development workers, many of whom are dealing specifically with youth and youth groups. We have other main programs, which we operate through community centres, targeted at youth that try to get them off the streets.
V. Anderson: I'd like to now move into the other division, the community support services division, and to begin looking at some of the programs there. First of all, we might deal with the program management part of it, as we have with the other divisions, and indicate the change in cost there. There's an increase in cost in this particular program. Is there an increase in FTEs? If so, why has the increase in FTEs and program cost taken place?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Program management in this division is $2.41 million, and the costs are related to staffing and building occupancy costs. There are 463 FTEs in our community support services division.
V. Anderson: When you say there are 463 FTEs in the division, is that the whole division? How many are in the program management side of the division?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The 463 FTEs are all on the front line. There are 16.36 FTEs at headquarters.
V. Anderson: Having dealt with teachers who are 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 FTEs, I understand how you can have a 0.36 FTE. It happens in Education all the time. No wonder the children may have difficulty with math these days.
Services for adults with mental handicaps. Under another discussion, the minister had indicated that there were program plan changes for this coming year. Could she indicate what the programs are for adults with mental handicaps, how many staff are involved, and what the budget in this current year is for that particular portion of services for adults with mental handicaps as it's listed here in the BC Guide?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The total budget for services for adults with mental handicaps is $314.84 million for the upcoming year. The staff allocation that I spoke to you about, the 463, actually provide services across programs. We don't have them assigned to a particular program.
But I can tell you, for instance, that the residential programs for residential care will cost $228.43 million this year. That's a substantial increase; last year it was for $186.2 million. This is mainly population-driven. There is a community residence program; $161.4 million was spent in '94-95. There's a semi-independent living program; $21 million was the expenditure in '94-95. There's intensive adult care services, for $3.1 million. And there's a professional support services program for $3.9 million; that's training and support.
V. Anderson: On the residential programs under services for adults with mental handicaps, I see they are listed separately. Do you have any suggestion as to approximately how many residential programs there are and how many have been added in this coming year? What is the shortfall that you
[ Page 15345 ]
estimate at this point...? We hear a lot of concern from the community that there are not enough residential programs for those people with mental handicaps who have need of them.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, let me begin by saying that much of the concern expressed to me by people with mental handicaps is that there are not enough services in the day program area -- sort of integrating them into the community.
I'll deal with you regarding what community residential care there is, then we'll talk a bit about the wait-lists. Of course, there's a bit of a mix here between adult care and child care. The community residential care serves approximately 3,900 adults, and that's a slight increase over '94-95. The cost will increase about 15.8 percent in that area, though. The budget increase reflects -- besides a slight population increase in the number being served -- the annualization of cost placements made in '94- 95. For instance, we've had to annualize the cost of the increase that was made for last year, including a substantial number of children in care turning 19 and moving from family and children's services support into the adult program. Then, of course, there are also funds for the low-wage strategy and the transfer of the development funds for the Services for Community Living that we've already talked about, which was under the Ministry of Health before.
In terms of the wait-lists in the community support services program area, there are about 250 individuals wait-listed for residential services. Although many are already receiving a service from our ministry, they are waiting for the actual residential care portion from our ministry. I'll just go through the others. The other wait-lists are for children, but I might just tell you about them now. There's a wait-list of over 90 children for behavioural support to children with autism. There's a wait-list of almost 300 children and/or their families for special services or homemakers -- that's the home support care -- and over 100 children are on the wait-list for at-home respite care. Some of those children are on wait-lists for more than one program, so you can't add up the numbers. Nevertheless, the wait-lists are substantial.
V. Anderson: When we talk about wait-lists for persons with mental handicaps, are we including the people who are coming out of Riverview and Woodlands?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member will know that Riverview Hospital is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. However, the community placement of people from Woodlands and Glendale is included in this wait-list.
V. Anderson: A clarification: are you saying that when the people leave Riverview they don't come under GAIN, or they're not the responsibility of Social Services? Are you saying they are still the responsibility of Health? That was not the understanding I got earlier from our discussion about Riverview.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, it's important to clarify what we're talking about here. You were asking me questions about residential care. My ministry is responsible for residential care for people with mental handicaps. Under the purview of the Ministry of Health, Riverview Hospital is responsible for residential care when people move from Riverview Hospital into the community. And I must clarify that those wait-lists are over and above the moving into the community of people from Woodlands and Glendale, who are people with mental handicaps.
V. Anderson: When we were discussing persons in Riverview the other day, the minister indicated that there would be new categories for GAIN for Handicapped that would include, as I understood it, people who had mental illness. When people with mental illness as well as those with mental handicaps came into the community and they had no income, they could apply to Social Services and would be able to get GAIN for Handicapped. This is my understanding of what we heard the other day.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's quite correct. The program we just announced -- the expansion of the definition for being eligible for GAIN for Handicapped -- will now include people who have episodic illnesses, which will be many people with mental illnesses. Yes, the definition has been expanded to include people who have never been eligible for the GAIN for Handicapped before.
V. Anderson: Just to clarify, I hear the minister making a distinction between people with episodic illnesses and people with mental illnesses. Is she saying that there are two categories here, and that all people with mental illness may not have been categorized with episodic illnesses, so that some -- who have all been in Riverview -- may be coming out under different categories?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not a doctor, hon. member, but I had explained to me by the community in great detail that because the definition for GAIN for Handicapped said, in a very regressive way, that people had to be permanently unemployable and never able to work again, it often precluded people with mental illness of an episodic nature, who frequently are able to enter the workforce but often have an episodic period of illness. The definition has now been changed to allow for episodic illnesses and still qualify people for GAIN for Handicapped. Beyond that, I cannot comment from an expert point of view.
V. Anderson: I want to clarify one other thing briefly about Riverview, while we're on that one. I've been advised since our discussion the other evening that the clothing allowance in Riverview includes the linen and all of the other items. It doesn't just include clothing. It's an allowance for a whole series.... When we were discussing it the other night, the impression I had, at least, was that when we talked about the clothing allowance -- an increase of some $20,000 or whatever it was to the clothing allowance in Riverview.... That really doesn't talk about clothing. It talks about linen and the kind of ward clothing that a person wears, rather than the street clothing that a person might wear. I want to clarify that, if you could help us with that understanding. I understand that it's administered by Health, but I just want to clarify that, because it did cause some concern in making sure we understood what we were talking about in that regard.
[7:45]
[ Page 15346 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, we didn't discuss the type of clothing allowance, because we agreed that it was under the purview of the Ministry of Health. So your questions are appropriate to the Minister of Health. All we discussed was the increase to it of about 10 percent.
V. Anderson: The other item to clarify.... I understand that the comfort allowance back in 1986 was $60, and that at the time that this government took.... In effect, the comfort allowance was $75, so that actually since '91 this government has increased the comfort allowance from $75 to $82 -- in other words, $7 a month or $84 a year. Could you verify that those figures are correct -- that since '91 there's been a $7 increase, from $75 to $82? The suggestion is that over the four years that hardly has kept up with the cost-of-living index.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I reported to you that it's been increased five times since 1987. I can certainly check the accuracy for you, and also the cost-of-living index for that period of time. I think you might find, certainly in the context, that's a much greater increase than GAIN rates have had. Certainly GAIN rates have kept up with the rate of inflation, but I'll check that out for you.
V. Anderson: Thank you. That would be appreciated.
Coming to Woodlands, then, there has been some concern about persons from Woodlands and about a community plan which was to be undertaken. Without that community plan being finalized, I understand there has been some building which has taken place at Woodlands. How come the William Rudd village complex has developed at Woodlands before -- as I understand -- the community plan was in place in order for a whole picture to be developed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that there is an active community plan going on through the assistance of BCBC, but I'm not aware of any building that's taken place -- in fact, not by our ministry, by any means. But if the member would like to clarify that, with details, I'll certainly investigate it.
V. Anderson: My understanding is that construction on the William Rudd village began two years ago on the site that was Woodlands, and that it is therefore there. I would like to get some information about that. The question that has come to us is: how come this complex has taken place, but there hasn't been a similar kind of village development for the people with mental handicaps who were at Woodlands and wished to stay and live in that kind of village complex on the Woodlands property? Some of them who have lived there for 50 years continued to live there, as we mentioned before, even after they moved out. One gentleman, I understand, has been moved out of Woodlands five times, and he still goes back from White Rock every day, because for 50 years it has been his home and that's where he feels comfortable. The question is: if the William Rudd village complex has been developed, why can't a similar development, in cooperation with BCBC, be done on that property?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going to need clarification, because I don't know what you mean by the William Rudd complex. There are 67 acres on the Woodlands site, which includes the Queens Park Hospital, a cemetery, a ravine area and Woodlands, on the remaining acres. There's Maple Cottage Detox Centre, which occupies one building. Queens Park Hospital is in the process of building an additional 12-bed neurological unit, but that's a neurological unit attached to a hospital.
There are no current plans to redevelop the Woodlands site until we have been assured that all the residents have found placements in appropriate community living settings. The last community placement is expected by December 1996. Again, BCBC is responsible, on behalf of the government, for putting into place a planning team to determine the future of the site once our ministry has vacated the property. There has been some interest expressed in having the Woodlands site retained for the continued use of people with special needs, including people with mental handicaps. All these proposals will be coordinated by BCBC during the planning process.
I know the member for New Westminster is taking a very active role in ensuring that all of the best interests, not only of the residents of Woodlands but also of the community of New Westminster, are met. Urban planning consultants have been engaged to conduct, under a process of public consultation, a development feasibility study. That has to include an open planning process and innovative site planning, and it also has to recognize the legacy of the property as a residential setting for individuals who have a mental handicap.
The William Rudd building is something that we're going to have to take on notice. I have actually visited Woodlands dozens and dozens of times, and I'm not familiar with it. I will try to get back to you on it.
V. Anderson: Could you describe the semi-independent living program a bit more, and the resources that are available for that? I know there's a great deal of concern in the whole lower mainland that there is not enough housing available for people with episodic illness, to use your terminology, and people with mental handicaps, and that they are having a great deal of difficulty. Could the minister bring us up to date on that? Does semi-independent living apply to persons coming from G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre or from Pearson Hospital, who are trying to move out into semi-independent living?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'm not aware of any connection to the people from Pearson Hospital. The semi-independent living program is for people with a mental handicap who are living in their own home, so residential requirements are not an issue here. We contract with non-profit societies or private agencies to operate training homes to help adults learn the skills required for independent living, and we provide in-home support for adults who are able to live alone, or in small groups in homes or apartments, who already have their accommodation ensured. The objective is to assist adults with mental handicaps to develop their own potential for independent functioning.
For the last fiscal year, as of March 1994 we served 619 clients, for a total cost of $19.9 million. Because there have been several questions from the member opposite about wait-lists, it's important to recognize that this is one of the largest areas of increase in this budget expenditure, ranging from about 12 percent up to 19 percent in some areas, which is unprecedented in terms of other expenditure items across government. Across the board, the increase was 28.4 percent. I can't emphasize how much.... With the fact that we're going to have $800 million less by 1997-98, the issues of management
[ Page 15347 ]
of expenditure are crucial to us. We find it of great concern that there are wait-lists; there's no question. But it does have to be managed in the context of substantially decreased financial resources.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response in that area.
Could she comment on the professional support services program and what the relationship is between it and the intensive adult-care services? What is the relationship between them, or are they an overlap in service?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The intensive adult-care services is a short-term residential placement for people who may develop a short-term challenging behaviour, or whatever, and need intensive residential care for a period of time. The professional support services, through which we served 718 clients as of March 1994.... And in the fiscal year '93-94, we spent $5.6 million. This year we'll be spending.... I'll try to figure out how much. It's part of the $161.4 million under community residential programs.
The professional support services is a team of professional caregivers to assist service providers, the family or ministry staff in providing effective support to persons with a mental handicap. For instance, they'll do individual program planning and implementation services; case consultation, assessment and planning; community liaison with, for instance, vocational rehab services for job training and placement; program and service planning; and monitoring and evaluation. It's very much a professional support to the front-line community service providers.
V. Anderson: Just to clarify, is this professional team working with service providers, or are they giving one-to-one consultation and service directly to the persons with mental handicaps?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It could be either; it covers both.
V. Anderson: Are those professional persons on contract, or are they on salary with the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're all contracted services.
V. Anderson: The training and support programs that are listed under the next section list self-help skills, the supported work program and the achievement centres program. Perhaps we could look at each one of these in turn and at the overall nature of them, their budgets and the FTEs that are involved. Then we could look briefly at each of those programs.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The expenditure for '93-94 self-help skills was $40.2 million, and in the last budget year it was $45.5 million. Self-help skills is a program to assist adults with a mental handicap by providing them with the necessary supports that will allow them to participate in and be included in the community. They are all contracted services for a range of training services to develop personal and social skills -- again, I think I've gone through this: personal care, the use of public transportation, community access, communication, the use of money, socialization, and employment readiness skills. The services can be provided to individuals or in a group setting.
The next one is the supported work program. We spent $6.7 million in '93-94, and it increased to $7.2 million in '94-95. Some 912 clients in the year '93-94 were served by this; that increased to 1,200 last year. It's an excellent program that offers a combination of work experience or ongoing training to assist them to find and maintain employment. It can be in the form of individual support or group support. Really, the program funding is targeted toward the individual, the employer or the community, either to provide direct services or to develop and promote the concept of supported work placements.
The achievement centres program expenditure was $3.1 million in '93-94 and $3.8 million in '94-95. There are 24 achievement centres in existence, serving 1,200 people. They are to assist adults with a mental handicap by allowing them to participate in the community. We provide a subsidy to non-profit societies to offer organized training and support programs for adults with a mental handicap. We also provide a travel allowance to cover travel costs to centres for individuals eligible for handicap benefits. I think the members opposite are aware that they're also called activity centres, sheltered workshops, opportunity centres, training centres or occupational centres.
[8:00]
V. Anderson: I think people are amazed by the extent and variety of the programs, and they appreciate that. I have two questions: one, are there waiting lists for these programs? Are we able to handle all of the persons who apply to be part of these programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, this is across the province. As of February of this year, there was a wait-list of 60 individuals for the achievement centres across the province. For the self-help skills program for individuals there was a wait-list of 224; for self-help skills in a group setting there was a wait-list of 105; then for self-help skills for the day program there was a wait-list of 226. In the supported work program there was a wait-list of 222 individuals.
V. Anderson: So that's close to a thousand individuals, just adding it up quickly, who are on wait-lists at this point across the province, at least that we're aware of. There are probably other people who don't even know that the programs exist and who wouldn't know of that.
One of the questions that has come to us from a number of people is about persons who have been in sheltered workshops until they were 19 and were living at home. The parents were able to have them in these workshops during the day. But when they were 19, they were dropped out of these workshops, and the care then came totally upon the parents, particularly in a time period between a day program that might be available and when the parents were home. There seems to be a major gap in support systems; that was raised two or three years ago. Has that particular problem been rectified, and has the program met with the increase in funds to solve the particular needs of these persons?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I understand the member's issue here, but let me just clarify it for him. People don't go into achievement centres until they have reached the age of majority, 19. But the issue is parental care for aging parents of people with a mental handicap who are adult-level and no
[ Page 15348 ]
longer qualify for children's services, and they are not in the mainstream of the school system. Again, as I said to you, we've substantially increased the budget to deal with this transitional issue, but as you can see, the wait-lists speak for themselves. I don't know how many of these people have aging parents, but certainly as I travel the province, the parents themselves bring the issue to my attention.
It does, of course, raise the issue of how we provide housing for people with a mental handicap in either an independent living setting or a semi-independent living setting. I think our government has done wonderful things in the area of housing to date. It's a very expensive matter and certainly one that we are having to go alone, because the federal government has got out of social housing completely.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That would be the federal Chretien government that I'm referring to.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, Liberal.
But the issue of transition and aging parents is one that we take seriously, and we keep investing as many tax dollars as we have available within the context of our overall budget.
V. Anderson: I move on, then, to the section of support for children with special needs. Again, there is a variety of programs here. Maybe, hon. minister, it would be simpler for you to go through these programs and deal with them; or I can ask about them one by one -- whichever you would prefer.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Overall, the support for children with special needs -- the whole program area, with the individual programs.... We spent $50.4 million in 1994-95, and the budget this year has increased by about 11 percent, to $56.56 million. The driver on that, of course, is population again.
I'll go through the programs. The first one is...let me see. We want to start with the at-home respite. It is a joint program between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services. The Minister of Health, of course, determines the eligibility for the program, and we provide the benefits. The at-home respite program provides respite and a range of medical benefits to families caring for children with severe disabilities in their own homes. It cost $4.07 million; that would be the budget allocation for this year. There are about 3,000 children receiving services under the at-home respite program.
It is truly a model for integration of services. I hear nothing but compliments about the program, other than that they need more dollars. The parents receive a grant for respite in equal monthly payments and are responsible for arranging the respite care. We can help them, but again there is individual choice of the parents, and they actually manage their own respite care budget. In order to get respite, the children don't have to be eligible for the full program. In other words, they don't have to be totally dependent in their activities of daily living, which is great, because you can then serve a range of special needs children. The medical benefits component of this program is administered by the health services division of my ministry.
The next program is the other respite services. The budget for 1993-94 was $4.3 million; for this coming year, it has increased to $4.51 million. It includes a range of respite services previously provided under the family and children's services division: programs like Families First, homemakers and intermittent special care. Respite is provided in an approved child care resource -- a foster home or a special care home. In order to access the respite through this program, the children must be admitted into the care of the superintendent of family and children's services. This is a support service for foster parents and group home service providers.
The next program is the special needs day care program. The policy and responsibility of that has been transferred to the Ministry of Women's Equality. Of course, we are in a transition period there, where we are moving to a much more individual-based program for supported child care, depending on the child's needs and the family's wishes. It is an excellent independent living model, if I may say so, for children at the very earliest ages.
The next program is infant development. We're going to be spending $6.53 million this year. That is a program where we provide home-based services -- I've attended many of these programs -- for parents of infants up to the age of three who are developmentally delayed. They have wonderful success in overcoming that delayed development syndrome through their direct work with family and children. Referrals are made to relevant community professionals -- perhaps an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist or a speech therapist. IDPs are in communities around the province.
The next program is professional support for children with special needs. In 1994-95 we spent $300,000. That is where we contract for specialized support services, including where you actually assess the child's needs and the family support needs. That is the upfront assessment work that is done to determine what program the child should be placed in.
Special services for families with children with special needs was previously under the family and children's services division. We're spending, this year, $3.03 million on this program. This is where we purchase the services of child care workers on a contract basis from agencies or -- on a very exceptional basis -- from an individual, to provide assistance to a child or a family. Such assistance may be for a short term, or it may be ongoing. It is basically for children with special needs where you can only assess the development of the child over the long term but where there are clearly short-term needs to enhance the development of the child.
On parent support for families with children with special needs we spent $2.6 million last year. This is a range of community-based services contracted to complement other more direct, goal-oriented and very child-specific services -- for instance, parent support groups for children with special needs, parent skills training, counselling on life skills, and even pre- and postnatal counselling.
The next one is family support homemakers for families with children with special needs. We spent $2.3 million last year. Again, this is where trained personnel provide direct care of children and household management, as well as training in household management techniques. Homemaker support may be provided on a short-term, intermittent or as-and-when-needed basis.
[ Page 15349 ]
V. Anderson: I appreciate that quick run-through; it's extremely helpful. I'm wondering in what.... You mentioned cooperation with Health. What cooperation is done with Education and the school system, as well as with Health? For all of these children, of whatever age, education is a fundamental part of this. Reading, writing or whatever they're capable of doing will be fundamental at that stage. So I'm wondering what cooperation there is with Education as well as with Health.
[8:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly it's a very important issue. I'm always so pleased to attend my son's elementary school, where there are many people with mental handicaps integrated into the school system. It's as natural and comforting as one could possibly imagine. So certainly the education system provides for special needs children.
The point of integration that's absolutely key is when the child is moving from supported child care into kindergarten, basically. Having met with our supported child care workers, they inform me.... Now, this varies from region to region and school board to school board, but where it works most successfully, they actually do a personal plan. They involve the parents, and they start very early -- six months before the child is to go into school. There's a personal plan put in place for the child throughout the transition. But once the child is in special needs in the education system, there is a whole other special needs program, target-funded from the Ministry of Education but delivered through the school boards.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. I'm also aware of these children who are part of the school system, very much so, with a variety of special needs. One of the awarenesses, though, is of the kind of head start programs. I'm wondering what kind of educational input is in these programs for the children before they get to school, because my experience is that for a lot of children who have special needs -- blind, deaf, a mental handicap or whatever else it may be -- unless they and their parents get educational help before they come to school, they're much further behind than they should be and not as easy to integrate. So I'm wondering about what educational input there is prior to them coming to school, and the number of workers who are going into their homes to help.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Supported Child Care report dealt with all of this. Now the supported child care -- which is special needs day care by another name -- is the responsibility of the Ministry of Women's Equality. But clearly the reason we're moving toward a model that's much more community-based and based on individual personal plans is that you cannot generalize about special needs children or what special supports they need. It's very much individualized. Some may need an attendant day-round or week-round. Others may need only the training of, as you say, a speech therapist or a physical therapist for a period of time. But part of the personal plan for each child with special needs at the day care level includes family support and family education as well.
V. Anderson: Are any of these programs financially driven? In other words, do they depend on the finances the family has? At what point do low-income people or high-income people all get the same services? Is there a cutoff in there, or a graduated scale?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it certainly was a vagary of the system -- and the member is quite right -- that regardless, if you had a special needs child, the extra support services you obtained as a family were not income-tested. A family that made $100,000 was eligible for the same free service as a family that was on income assistance.
However, the review that was done in 1993 recommended a change in that area, saying that those who could afford it should be able to contribute the basic child care costs, at least, that any.... Families, regardless of income, got not only their basic child care costs paid, but also the add-on costs for special needs child care as well. This report recommended that the families who could afford to pay, and who would otherwise not be eligible for the basic child care subsidy, should pay those day care costs for the child. That's been received very quietly and without a lot fanfare, but it has yet to be implemented. I think the implementation of that policy -- and again, because this is the purview of the Minister of Women's Equality, I'm speaking by association -- is later this year, or perhaps earlier; it's before the end of this fiscal year, anyway.
V. Anderson: If I understand rightly, the report you're talking about is one that came through the Ministry of Women's Equality, rather than the Social Services ministry. I see the minister nodding, so I'll say thank you to that.
Moving on, then, to the community services programs and subsidy programs that are listed there, are they still in the ministry, or have some of them been transferred out?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The whole program has been transferred out to the Ministry of Women's Equality. The responsibility lies with the Ministry of Women's Equality, but as many people know, the administrative infrastructure of our ministry is so community-based that we actually administer the program. But basically, we're just the front people; the policy and payment is through the Ministry of Women's Equality. They will spend $100 million this year on child care subsidies; of course, this is a cost-share program under the Canada Assistance Plan.
V. Anderson: So that's one program that is still cost-shared, if I hear the minister right. For how long, who knows, but....
Interjections.
V. Anderson: I'll get a few plugs in here on the positive side.
Would the minister be kind enough to comment on the community projects funding program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This year $9 million will be spent on community projects funding. It is a program where we assist non-profit societies in providing community-based social services to people who are in need or who are likely to be in need. We contract with non-profit societies to do this. The programs are directed toward families, groups or individuals. The services that are funded complement and support the ministry statutory programs. We funded 200 projects in 1994-95.
V. Anderson: If I understand it, these projects cover a wide age and variation in persons, from older persons to
[ Page 15350 ]
younger persons to youth -- all across the ages. Are there just a whole variety of programs, or are there particular themes or groupings within this of particular kinds of programs? I assume that community groups that want to apply have to have some kind of guideline as to what enables them to qualify for these particular programs. Could you indicate what enables them to qualify and how they are evaluated, if you like, for repeat funding and for success?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The range of programs is as the hon. member has suggested. There are family services projects that assist families with counselling programs on parenting or with support and training for self-help groups. Youth projects provide activities for young people to enable them to participate in their communities. There are low-income advocacy projects. For the first time ever our government funded low-income advocacy groups, with a substantial amount of funding going to a range of advocacy groups. There are services-to-the-handicapped projects, and there are volunteer services projects to assist in coordinating the efforts of local volunteers.
I'll just tell you about a couple that would perhaps help, because they come from our community, Vancouver. There's the Association of Neighbourhood Houses that we fund -- for instance, the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House in Vancouver, but other neighbourhood houses too. Some are fun activities, parenting programs, interpreter training programs. You know, we actually fund family-focused social development and integration programming through the neighbourhood houses. Another agency that receives a community project grant in our area is Family Services of Greater Vancouver. They've actually contracted with us for programs that prevent family breakdown and improve the family unit through conflict reduction. That's it; those are some examples that you may be familiar with.
Their eligibility requirements are that the projects must be supportive of ministry services; that they do not duplicate services that the ministry provides; that they're not the sole responsibility of any other provincial ministry or of the federal, municipal or local government; that they're targeted to existing or potential ministry clients; that they are measurable in terms of stated objectives; and that they have the support of the community. They must include a volunteer component. Annual reviews are provided with the following information: service descriptions, objectives and achievements, community and client needs, target client group, budget, and service statistics.
V. Anderson: On these particular programs -- I know this is helpful for groups -- are they one-year funding grants, or are they two- or three-year funding grants? For continuity and planning, groups spend so much of their time each year worrying about or planning for whether their grant will continue. Is there continuity, or is it one year across the board?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're one-year grants.
V. Anderson: Moving on to the senior citizen counsellors, is that still in your ministry, or has it been transferred out?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We will spend $390,000 this year. Actually, the description in the BC Guide is accurate. This is an excellent program, once again. There are volunteer counsellors. One of the pleasures I have is to appoint these volunteer counsellors. They offer a range of services to other seniors. They're a direct referral service; they provide individual support. The cost of the program is to provide an honorarium to the counsellors.
V. Anderson: Could you indicate approximately how many counsellors might be in the program at this point, as they continue to grow? Is the program found right across the province? I'm very aware of it in our own area, but I was wondering how prevalent it is across the province and whether it happens to be only in larger communities and cities, or whether it's active in smaller communities as well. Is it dependent upon a nucleus of people being there in order to get them organized?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's it's across the province. When I meet with the senior citizen counsellors, there are dozens and dozens. I'm sorry, I don't have the exact number. Some come from very small communities, so it's the full range of communities.
V. Anderson: I know it's greatly appreciated. I've been at some of the graduations of the programs, and have worked with and been part of some of the programs where these people have been involved.
Could you indicate the nature of the employment initiatives program for the handicapped? How many people are involved? Is it contract? And what is its scope?
[8:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We spent $180,000 on this program last year. It's basically opportunities for individuals on handicap benefits to participate in volunteer work experience. So it's a community volunteer program -- actually, that's a separate program. But it's targeted to people with handicaps in order to enhance their employment-related experience. They receive an allowance of up to $50 a month to cover expenses related to the program. Placements are time-limited, and up to a maximum of 12 months in any 36-month period. There were 361 participants in the fiscal year ending March '94.
V. Anderson: I know that at one time there wasn't a time limit on this. They used to be able to extend themselves as long as they were working. If I remember correctly, they are asked to do a 20-hour week for the $50. Is that still correct? I might have asked it in some of the other training programs, but I'm wondering if in these programs there has been any initiative to include computer skills. Computer skills can add so much to the person with a handicap in a way that nothing else can. Have computer skills been consciously built into the enrichment or training programs by the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, to the latter question. To the former question, let's not confuse the community volunteer program -- I know I brought it up myself. The employment initiatives program is a different one. The community volunteer program is the one that's ten hours per month -- $100 a month to cover costs. The member is quite right that there is not a time limit of participation in the community volunteer program. That one is extremely popular, and there were about 2,500 people participating in that throughout the province.
V. Anderson: Did I hear the minister right that in the community volunteers program they work ten hours a month
[ Page 15351 ]
to receive $100 a month? Is that correct? And is that open only to people who are on GAIN benefits? It's not open to others; it's only open to the people who are on GAIN.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
V. Anderson: The administrative services division, then, is a division.... We had covered some of our administrative services area earlier, but this seems to fit into a different capacity. Could you explain what the administrative services division is? What's the cost and how many FTEs are a part of it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The description is accurate, but let me just tell you that there are 46 FTEs in this division. They report to the assistant deputy minister of management services, and it is as it states there: they are responsible for office space, purchasing office equipment, vehicle management, forms and manuals.
V. Anderson: One question comes to mind with regard to the volunteers in a variety of different programs. Are they covered by liability insurance, medical coverage or WCB coverage? Does that come along with their contracting with the ministry for these programs, or is it expected to be provided by the groups that are employing them or working with them?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Excuse me, I just need clarification. Are you talking about the community volunteer program in your question?
V. Anderson: Yes.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay -- sorry, I missed that. Actually, it's not a wage program. The payment is to defray the expenses of having to attend work and a lunch. So no, they're not treated as employees, nor is risk management required.
V. Anderson: Backing up to some of the other programs we discussed earlier, a question comes to me about employment enrichment, training programs, the kinds of programs where persons with handicaps are working, employment initiatives for the handicapped, and the sheltered workshops. Is there WCB, medical or liability coverage in those programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the sheltered workshops and achievement centres are covered by the work-related coverage requirements. The employer is required to cover that. Now, some of the... There's a relationship with the GAIN for Handicapped, so I'm not sure whether benefits are covered under that, but I'll have to check for you on the medical benefits covering people working in achievement centres.
V. Anderson: I raise that because we've had people who have had some difficulties in related areas raise those issues; it's usually after the fact, when it hasn't been clear up front at the very beginning, so I do raise that.
Could you tell us about the advocate for service quality for people with mental handicaps? Who is involved in it? How many people are there? What is the cost of this program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two people in this office, for a cost of $120,000. It's an excellent advocacy service. Pat Vickers was appointed the advocate in March 1992. She works with all interested parties to ensure that individuals with mental handicaps are well served by our ministry. She is literally an internal advocate. She has complete independence, though, I might say. She has achieved great results in terms of assuaging and massaging issues between clients of the ministry -- people with handicaps -- my staff and service providers. She does excellent work. Her role is ever-expanding; there are more and more people wishing to use her services. She has an advisory committee made up of service providers, self-advocates and parents. I met with them about three months ago, I guess; certainly she's a model for internal advocacy.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
V. Anderson: I'm aware of this and appreciate the comments, and I would agree with you. Is there some attempt, as this role expands, to give her additional support and resources? I would hate to see her get in the same position that other people in Social Services have, where they're overloaded by success and because they do an effective job. Is there some indication that there will be an expansion of that? How is that effective throughout the province? Is there a person working from one location? I know in the lower mainland that works very well, or perhaps even in the Victoria area, but what about throughout the province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The advocate services across the province. She does travel, but she can also do much of her work by modern communication. We have not been able to find the resources to expand the advocate's office, so we have asked the advocate -- and the advocate has agreed -- to manage through case management, but not to expand.... You're quite right: not to take on more than what we can achieve through service quality advocacy.
V. Anderson: In all the other programs we're talking about millions of dollars, and then we come to a program that has only $120,000 and we hear it's such a significant program and it does such a good job -- which presumably saves money in the process, because it's preventive. I find it difficult to understand why $60,000 couldn't be added to this program when in all of the other programs we're talking about millions. It seems to me that's a mind-set rather than a financial budgeting problem. It's a mind-set of looking at resources and deciding that we'll save in one area in order to do this.
I recently talked to a member of a government department -- which will go unnamed -- who wanted to do some extra programming. They discovered that there wasn't going to be any money available, so they restructured within themselves and were able to do it. So I would like to comment that with the kind of record of this program of $120,000, where $40,000 or $60,000, as against millions in other programs.... To me, it's a mind-set problem, not a budget problem. And I would recommend that there be a review of the mind-set, because I'm sure that the quality of this program should not be hampered and go into case management. It would be my understanding that it saves more money than it actually spends, at $120,000. I'd like to encourage the minister to take another look at that mind-set, and I'm sure the budget would adjust itself accordingly.
Maybe that brings us automatically to the audit services division. I know that the minister made some comments on
[ Page 15352 ]
this earlier, but in having to audit as many programs as there are here, not only for effectiveness but for quality.... Could the minister comment about the kind of audit for this massive number of programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To reiterate, we also have an audit and review division under family and children's services -- the office of the superintendent, which audits and reviews cases of families and children. This is an internal audit review for the audit services division. It reports directly to the deputy minister and ensures that audit findings and recommendations are considered at the highest management level, and provides the division with the independence it needs to meet its objective. It only reports to the deputy minister, so it is not tied to a program below that. The audit services division evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal controls and information systems, determines whether policy is correctly and uniformly administered, and determines whether contract services are delivered in accordance with contract terms.
It has 13.25 FTEs organized into three categories: compliance audits are the services being delivered that we've contracted for or that our staff have been designated to do; contract services audits; and systems audits.
V. Anderson: Within this division, could you update us on the status of Woodlands and Glendale, the institutions that are listed there? Where are they at this point? I notice that we end up with a negative figure there, and perhaps you could comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: On March 31, 1995, 43 residents remained at Glendale, and 110 remained at Woodlands. To put that in context, over the past 11 years the total resident population at Woodlands and Glendale has decreased from 1,541 to the current 153. Glendale is scheduled for closure by March of next year and Woodlands by December of next year. The overall budget was increased on a net basis by $6.05 million. Really, it was increased by $11.9 million, but there was $5.85 million in institutional savings, for a net increase of $6.05 million. That's for the current phase of downsizing.
[8:45]
V. Anderson: Did I understand the minister to say that there is now new planning for that site in that area? Does the minister continue to have representation on that? And will people with mental handicaps be considered, through the ministry? Do they have representation on this planning group as well as, I presume, local community people? Do the people with mental handicaps and also, perhaps, with mental illnesses now have representation on this planning group -- they and their families?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the people who live at Woodlands are people with mental handicaps. The process will include stakeholders -- the families of the residents, the advocacy groups -- and it will include some self-advocates as well. So yes, they are included regarding the redevelopment of the Woodlands site.
V. Anderson: I've had a comment asking why the Department of Transport would be putting in survey stakes on the Woodlands site at the present time. Does the minister happen to know what's involved and what's going on there?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry; I don't have any knowledge about whether that in fact is occurring or why.
V. Anderson: I think the minister was going to look at the question about the William Rudd complex. This could be checked out at the same time, to let us know what actually is happening on that site and what the process and stage of development is as it stands now and is projected in the near future. So I thank the minister for indicating that she would look at that. Hon. Chair, I think, then, we have moved into the last section, believe it or not: the income support programs. That's a fairly extensive section, too, so how far we will get with that I'm not sure. But perhaps we can start, first of all, with the program management section of that -- how many are involved in it and what the budget for program management is. This section is fairly large -- perhaps the largest section of all of them when we look at the funding in this area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are 1,828 employees in the regional division, and at headquarters there are 30 FTEs. The budget for 1995-96 is $1.9 billion.
V. Anderson: When you say 30 people at headquarters, I'm presuming that's in Victoria and that's separate from the minister's office itself -- separate in the Victoria headquarters office -- and the other ones are divided out into the regional areas of the province. Are there groupings of persons who are not in the regional districts and who are not in the headquarters -- who are dispersed somehow, and who wouldn't be called either regional personnel or headquarters personnel? Are there other divisions of people in special project groups or whatever?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we could begin to look, then, at the income assistance division, which is listed here as a category. Is that really referring to the headquarters division, or is that simply a description of the Humboldt office and its activities?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is the headquarters operation.
V. Anderson: The current income assurance program.... There are a variety of categories that come under this. Perhaps this is the area that will get at some of the things that we referred to earlier. We begin here, first of all, with handicapped benefits. The minister has indicated that there are going to be some changes forthcoming in handicapped benefits. Some of these, I think, have been announced as if they have already happened, but my understanding is that they are going to happen. I'm just trying to get some clarity on what is covered by this, what is projected, what the budget is in this area and how many it covers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Work is ongoing with the community to implement the change. It does require a regulation change, not a legislative change. We're involving the community in the change. They have been actively involved in terms of lobbying for change, and now they're going to work with us to implement the change in the most cost-effective manner that affects the widest range of people. It is certainly anticipated
[ Page 15353 ]
that, as of my announcement of changing the definition of handicapped benefits, to end forever the ridiculous requirement that people have to be permanently unemployed in order to be eligible and to change the nature of what an illness is -- to include a wider range of 1990s disabilities.... The implementation of this assessment tool for determining eligibility will be done in consultation with community advocacy groups and consumers. We anticipate that this year, we will be able to actually expand, to offer support to upwards of 6,000 more people who are currently living with a disability.
V. Anderson: Approximately how many persons are on the handicapped...? Is GAIN for Handicapped the designation that usually applies to this group? Is that the group we are talking about? How many are on it at the moment? You are saying that you expect that another 6,000 will be added to it with the new definition.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Approximately one in nine adult income assistance recipients receives these benefits, so there are income assistance recipients eligible for the GAIN for Handicapped benefits. That's the long way of describing the program. There are approximately 26,000 people currently in receipt of the handicap benefit.
V. Anderson: We're redefining the definition of handicapped so that more people might properly be involved within this. Are there different changes that will be coming within that? In the past, people have had difficulty with diet allowances or health circumstances or equipment that they needed that went along with their handicap. There have been a variety of concerns about diet allowances, health needs or equipment needs that have gone along with.... Is there a reworking of the category of service options, if you like, that are more in tune with the actual needs of the individual who has these handicaps?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, on all counts. That's exactly what the announcement encompassed. First of all, we are bringing it to the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century with the recognition that people with disabilities can be and wish to be integrated into mainstream society, including opportunities for work. Also, we recognize that some people with disabilities face some particular needs in the area of supports. You're quite right; we're looking at an expansion and reassessment of supports and at hopefully modernizing the daily supports that people need to exist with their handicaps.
Yes, we've changed the diet allowance to actually make it relevant to people with disabilities. Actually, people who were on the GAIN for Handicapped benefit were never eligible for the diet allowance, even though they had very specific dietary needs. Our announcement changed that, so they are now eligible for the dietary allowance. Also, we're changing the dietary allowance so it's not just a flat rate; we actually make the diet allowance deal with the nature of the dietary requirements. It's good news all around. It has been quietly received by the media, which is nothing surprising when there are good-news announcements, and it has been very well received in the community.
V. Anderson: I doubt if the media even understands what has happened. It's not an announcement, because they don't know what happened; it hasn't been explained.
Am I to understand that these changes regarding dietary allowances and supportive equipment, if you like, which are medical prescriptions, are already in place? That's not something that has to wait for the future?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that requires regulation change. We're working with the community as we speak for implementation, and I expect the regulatory changes very shortly.
V. Anderson: A while ago the minister talked about acts and policies and regulations: acts are passed by the Legislature, policy is made by the ministry and regulations are made by cabinet. Am I understanding right? So when she talks about regulations, these are ones that are going to go through to cabinet, and therefore she hopes they will be done fairly quickly. Will that happen before the definition of handicapped is changed? I know that that definition of handicapped has been under discussion for many years. Is that coming at the same time as the other definitions?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's actually anticipated that they will come as a package. The delay is only to ensure that we're getting the best value for the changes, and we need the advice of the community on how to do that to actually meet people's needs. So they'll come as a package. It's anticipated they'll be passing early this fall.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister saying early this fall, because the term "shortly" has different definitions, whether this month, next month.... Early this fall means sometime in October, November or December -- at least, it does in Vancouver. If it was in the Prairies, it would be July or August. So it has various different....
I was interested in this because in reviewing a document prepared a year ago regarding appeals, I noticed that only 1 percent of GAIN groups were appealing. Of the 200,000 cases that were being dealt with over the year, about 1 percent came up for appeal. But of that 1 percent, the largest number -- 38 percent -- had to do with persons with handicaps. That was two if not three times any other concern, largely because -- as the minister has expressed -- the system was outdated and really unworkable. We've been pressing for some time for these changes.
Would the minister agree with me that with this change, there's every prospect that the kind of dissatisfaction that has come through that system is going to be reduced considerably? She's nodding in favour. I was surprised to discover, actually, the extent to which the handicapped portion was the biggest grievance group in the system. So it will be interesting to see. Is there an evaluation set up in your audit process, if you like, to deal with that measurement before and after this process takes place?
[9:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The member has assessed quite rightly why that was a very strong.... The number of appeals -- and, I might add, successful appeals -- were in the area of appealing the turndown of a GAIN for Handicapped definition. It highlighted for us exactly why we needed to change. There's no sense perpetuating a system that doesn't work and doesn't meet the needs of the people it's to serve -- hence the change.
[ Page 15354 ]
V. Anderson: I'm sure it's going to do a great deal for the morale of the front-line workers as well, who were frustrated by a system that, do the best they could, they were unable to access.
Could the minister now comment on the seniors benefits that are listed there? What portion and how many people are using the seniors' benefits program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The seniors' supplement program ensures that senior citizens in British Columbia receive a guaranteed minimum income. The federal government administers the three major programs providing funds to seniors, and I'm sure we know what those are: old age security, GIS and the spouse's allowance. Where the sum of these amounts is less than the guaranteed minimum income, which is $899.53 for a single person, etc., etc., a seniors' supplement payment is made. So this is a guaranteed annual income for seniors.
The budget, which includes bus passes for seniors, is $30.5 million; there was a 4.9 percent increase in this. The caseload is approximately.... There are about 40,000 recipients of the seniors' supplement.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
V. Anderson: On the seniors' supplement, has that number been increasing or decreasing? Is there a trend at all? We hear, on one hand, that more seniors are getting older; but, on the other hand, we hear their income is better. So I'm wondering if there's an indication whether that's been increasing or decreasing. Backing up, when you're answering that question, I might ask whether those on handicapped benefits also get bus passes.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, people in receipt of handicapped benefits get bus passes. As to your first question, which I'll answer second, there has been an increase in the seniors' supplement, but mainly around the issue of falling seniors' income through interest payments. Therefore there has been a greater need, but really, it has increased.... Let me just see the case; oh, that's bus passes. Okay. No, there has been a minimal percentage increase, but it's due to the falling interest rates, actually.
V. Anderson: We move on. Perhaps one thing in passing: when we talk about local community service offices, we've heard a number of concerns about offices changing their role and expanding or decreasing. Has there been any major shift lately in community offices as far as availability to people or where they have to go to pick up cheques and that kind of thing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We just want to make sure we canvass all the potential questions behind your question. No, we have always been a community-based service delivery model. There are 380 offices across the province; not all of those are income assistance offices. We continue to be a community model and there may be.... Clearly, clients who now are eligible for training programs go to a skills centre, which is separate. In some cases, we're actually co-located with the skills centres, but in other areas they may have to go to a different office to access those programs.
V. Anderson: We're looking at temporary assistance, which is the next item. It's probably one of the biggest items, I would expect. Could the minister comment on the temporary assistance area? There are a number of sections. Does she want to do those as a group, or separately again? Perhaps we could take a look at those.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't mind doing it as a group. Of course, temporary assistance is really regular benefits, shall we say -- for those who are eligible for regular benefits. The basic temporary assistance covers support and shelter. That's the bulk of the expenditure under income assistance; it is estimated that it will be $1.4 billion for 1995-96. The additional benefits cover discretionary grants, contributions and other supplementary allowances, for instance, and there is $84.28 million under that category.
Temporary hardship assistance is for people who are ineligible for regular benefits and qualify only for temporary hardship assistance. The budget for 1995-96 is $148.32 million. The Child in Home of Relative program -- the CIHR program.... The CIHR figure we'll have broken down for you in a minute. Emergency social services in the event of a disaster is $0.67 million -- that's actually like our earthquake disaster program. I just want to say that there's another cost item called hostels and emergency shelters. That's discretionary grants and contributions, which was $13.4 million last year and $14.08 million this year.
The employment and training programs have been transferred to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, with the exception of the employment-bridging program, which is well described in this guide, and we will spend approximately $8.81 million this year.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we could take a look at that employment-bridging program, since it was just raised. Could you explain the employment-bridging program, how it functions, how many persons are a part of that program, and is this the one that's done in cooperation with the federal government? What is the nature of this program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The CIHR cost last year was about $15 million.
The employment-bridging program has nothing to do with the federal government; it's part of CAP. It's part of income assistance, and therefore it's capped on CAP. It's basically a program that provides work clothes, transportation to the job and a work transportation allowance for special programs and the handicapped recipients. There's a day care surcharge allowance covered under there, and some alcohol and drug counselling as well, in terms of bridging to employment.
V. Anderson: Is this the program where tools were also provided at one time? From reading some regulations that changed recently, I understand that tools have been dropped from that program. The work clothes and transportation are still available, but the tools have been dropped from that program.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we didn't ever provide tools. But there is some contemplation in terms of cost-cutting in areas where we're not affecting those most vulnerable, looking at changing the way we deliver, or if we deliver a work clothing allowance for someone who has a job and is in receipt of a paycheque.
[ Page 15355 ]
V. Anderson: I didn't quite understand -- the work clothing is for someone who has a job and is in receipt of a paycheque? It would seem to me that work clothing would be more important for the person who hasn't got a job and is trying to get one. Or are you saying that if they have a job confirmed that they're going to, they get transportation and clothing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I know that the hon. member is referring to what I spoke about in second reading of Bill 20. I suspect that's what you're talking about. First of all, the work clothing allowance is for people going to a job. In terms of having to manage the budget in the context of federal off-loading, there could not be a demonstrated connection between need and paying the clothing allowance to someone who was going to a job. That's exactly why we're looking at making changes in terms of limiting that benefit: it's so we have resources available to us for those genuinely in need. But it's not tools; it's just clothing that we're talking about.
V. Anderson: It was my understanding that it was there. There was a limited amount for tools and work equipment at one time. I think I remember reading when that piece was taken out of the regulations.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Historically, tools were provided, but that regulation changed to remove the provision of tools as a benefit. That took place before our memory. That's only four years, in my case, but it was previous to our government.
[9:15]
V. Anderson: I will have to go and look that up, because I'm sure I read that just within the last month rather than four years ago.
Coming back to the basic temporary assistance, which you state is the regular assistance program, we've had some discussion of this. This is where we'd probably say that most of the people are on income assistance at this point. What would be our current number? I think there have been some suggestions in our legislative discussions and otherwise that those numbers have been going down now -- or that the ministry expected them to go down. Is there any indication that that is actually happening? I hear that the unemployment rate has gone up again; it has started to go in the other direction. Is there a shift in what was expected earlier?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Over the course of the last five years and in estimating for this year, the caseload has actually fallen substantially. I'll just go according to during my tenure. There was a 13 percent increase in caseload in 1993-94. That dropped by almost half in the year 1994-95, and we expect to actually have a flat caseload at minimum and.... I'm sorry; I'm reading the wrong figures. The caseload in 1993-94 increased by 10.91 percent, then that actually did fall by half in 1994-95, and we actually expect to have a negative caseload increase this year.
The drivers of the caseload -- of any increase in the year 1994-95 -- were due to net population in-migration to this province. Everyone in this Legislature is well aware that we're the only province that has a substantial net in-migration -- that's separate and apart from immigration -- from other provinces. Some of those end up, for a temporary period of time, on income assistance. Of course, one is precluded from having a residency requirement for being eligible for income assistance.
The other caseload driver, of course, is UI off-loading. Those two factors together make up the entire caseload increase for 1994-95. But for those two factors.... For instance, if we were Alberta, where there was no net in-migration, and if the federal government had not made the regulation changes to UI, our caseload would be in substantial decline. Nevertheless, they are issues that we have to manage, and we're managing them vigorously, understanding the taxpayers' need for us to be fiscally responsible and maintain confidence in the system.
A very interesting statistic is of concern to me. I'm a labour economist by training, and the fact of the matter is that as recently as the late eighties, over 85 percent of people who lost their jobs were eligible for unemployment insurance. That figure has now dropped to 49 percent. These aren't people who have never worked; these are people who have lost their jobs. Only 49 percent are eligible for unemployment insurance now. It's particularly hard-hitting to young people who are newly attached to the workforce. You know the phrase: last hired, first fired. That's our young people. They're not eligible for unemployment insurance or there's a substantial, prolonged waiting period for unemployment insurance. That's a major case-driver on our income assistance caseload.
V. Anderson: We hear a great deal about single as against married. What are the relative drivers, if you like, of the increase or decrease of single employable persons as against married employable persons or family persons?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the distinction in terms of caseload increases is more between single people and single parents. I think that's perhaps what the member was meaning. And yes, he has targeted on different caseload drivers. There's no question that the ones I referred you to in terms of the fluctuation in eligibility for unemployment insurance are a caseload driver of the single people. There's no question about that.
There also are very interesting developments which I could go on at length about. But in the nature of work in this country, we are basically in a jobless recovery. Economic expansion often doesn't include job creation, although our province has done well in job creation. But certainly not.... When there was that rapid economic expansion in the fifties and sixties and even in the seventies, it was based upon labour employment growth. That's no longer the case. The introduction of technology has expanded, and productivity is up greatly, but employment is not up. Hence we've had, as the member referred to, an unemployment level that's never fallen below 8 percent nationally for the last decade and often hovers around double digits. So those are the economic drivers for the single person caseload.
The other factor, though, for single parents is the change in our families. I will take the opportunity to talk about the traditional family and its non-existence in this province. Although I know some people would like to perpetuate the myth of the traditional family and make it the centre of a platform, the fact of the matter is that the traditional family is in great decline in this province, and we feel it first and foremost on our income assistance caseloads.
[ Page 15356 ]
I think 70 percent of single moms end up on income assistance. Why is that? It's often because the non-custodial parent literally abandons the family. This isn't a wish, or this isn't because of some horrendous living condition of single parents -- not when you're talking about 70 percent of single parents ending up on income assistance. The fact of the matter is that billions and billions of dollars are owed in this country to children. And who is it that owes the children these dollars? Is it some big bad corporation? Is it some big bad government? No, it's their dads. That's a simple fact of life. Dads. And I hope you'll bear with me in allowing me to target dads, because quite frankly 95 percent of single parents on income assistance are moms.
Literally billions of dollars are owed to children in this province by their dads. Would that change our caseload statistics for single parents? You bet it would. Would it go a long way to eradicating poverty of children? Yes, absolutely. I am more than willing.... If the restoration and enhancement of the traditional family meant that kids would be able to rise out of poverty, I'd be all in favour of restoring the traditional family. But let me tell you what's breaking down: it's the traditional family that's breaking down. And you know who it is that's abandoning the children? It's the dads in the traditional family -- dads.
V. Anderson: I think the statistics speak for themselves, so there's no argument with the minister. There are a few wealthy moms, too, who aren't paying their share to the husbands who are carrying the ball, so there are a few the other way around, but the majority is certainly in that.... And the interesting thing is that as women become more involved in businesses and become self-supporting, gradually that shift will probably balance out somewhat the other way down the line. But that's not the current situation.
What I'm wondering, then, with those figures -- which are not likely, sociologically or economically, to change -- is what the minister is planning in the area of social services to try to deal with those and respond to them, because fortunately or unfortunately, the social service system has become the substitute income for people who might normally have a job. This has grown continually since the Second World War and finally, since the seventies, has come down on us. But not only is this a question of poverty and lack of income, it is also a psychological thing of lack of credibility for yourself as a person, in having to live in that circumstance and not be able to supply for yourself. So job creation for no jobs is not necessarily the answer, nor is education for no jobs. Has the minister some suggestion of an additional approach besides those traditional ones to respond to this? Fortunately, she's very aware of the problem, so is hopefully trying to head it upfront. I think it's important that we tackle that honestly and realistically.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We need more than traditional approaches; there's no question about that. I think that the way to go is not to rely on government-created jobs, either. When government expenditures get too great a burden to bear, taxpayers resist, and the stability of government-created jobs is not there anymore. I agree with that. I think that the economic generator should come from a partnership in the private sector.
We've had many interesting discussions with the private sector about partnerships in moving people from welfare to work. There are some exciting ones in the area of Skills Now. Some of them are targeted toward single parents. I find a great empathy among our business community for targeting single parents and moving them from welfare to work. Our greatest success in permanent attachment to the workforce through skills training of people who have been on income assistance is among single moms.
Let me just quickly say that moving people from welfare to work has to be done through the private sector. Governments can assist in a proactive approach to income assistance, where we work with private enterprise employers who guarantee full-time and permanent jobs; not just a wage subsidy for a period of time. They guarantee those jobs by guaranteeing proactive support and on-the-job training or particular skills training for people who currently collect a very passive income assistance. I'm not talking about any mandatory system here. There's a long, long lineup of people on income assistance who want to work, and who would participate voluntarily in any program that we create. So that's one approach.
I would refer the member -- and I'm sure the members opposite probably have read this -- to the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living. That was a group of people the Premier brought in from all walks of life -- business, labour, academic, consumer groups, aboriginal groups, housing representatives, as well as cabinet members and government bureaucrats -- to look at revamping the system -- and with some excellent ideas for discussion in there. Just to begin the discussion about the move from part of the disincentives built into the current passive system is that very often the working poor, the employed poor, are less well off than people who are on income assistance in terms of the supports needed for maintaining a place in the workforce.
Let's just go back to targeting the area of single-parent families. People here know that one in five children under the age of five lives in poverty in this province. If you actually allow yourself to think about this, it's heartrending; you are reduced to tears if you think about the fact that every fifth child one meets is relying on a poverty-level income.
We tried to take immediate and quite strong steps to change that through the family maintenance program. We really revitalized the family maintenance program last year, and with great success. It was not on a coercive basis but was on an encouraging and voluntary basis: encouraging single parents to apply for family maintenance and working with the Attorney General to enforce it, thereby giving a source of income to a single mom and her kids even after she is off income assistance. That is excellent news. That whole program has been beefed up, with great success.
I'll give you some of the increases. From 1993-94 to 1994- 95, even with the program only being beefed up one-third of the way through the year, we increased our maintenance orders by over 26 percent. There's been a 66 percent increase in the payment rate of maintenance orders, which is good news once again.
[9:30]
I'll tell you, in talking to single moms, that this is great encouragement for them to move from welfare to work. The maintenance order is not going to change regardless of if they are on income assistance or in the workforce. They get that maintenance order achieved and enforced through govern-
[ Page 15357 ]
ment without having to pay costly legal fees. In fact, they don't pay anything for it; we assume all of the responsibility for that.
The other area.... There is an interesting program going on called the self-sufficiency project, which targets single parents particularly. It is an approach that is.... It's actually working with the federal government to move single parents to a level -- an earnings supplement -- that's a benchmark earnings for single parents. Two other initiatives, of course, are the vast expansion of child care in this province so that people don't face that barrier of moving from welfare to work.... And then lastly, we are urging, in every way possible, the federal government to have a guaranteed maintenance payment system. They have put together a proposal that is a form of guaranteed maintenance payment, but it remains at the proposal level. We are urging, in the strongest possible terms, that the federal government pursue that through to implementation.
R. Neufeld: I have just a few questions about the family maintenance program and items around that. To revert back to a few minutes ago, the minister talked about traditional families. I do agree with the minister fully that one of our greatest problems is the breakdown of what was determined or interpreted as the traditional family. That's one of the difficulties we have not just in British Columbia, but also across Canada and in North America as a whole. Also, there is a tremendous change, I guess, in the social structure. We all know that at one time -- and I guess that's why I was adopted -- it wasn't cricket to keep your children, and children were adopted out. Now, many mothers are keeping their children. In fact, in my constituency and in many more we see a certain number of single moms on social assistance having more than one child -- and the father on social assistance.
Those are difficult situations, and they are not easy to deal with; I don't care who would be in government or how you would deal with that, but it is something that society has to deal with. They become very dependent on the system, because although the amount of money they get may not be much, there are all the benefits that go along with it that many of the working poor in British Columbia do not enjoy. For instance, I never enjoyed a dental program, that I can ever remember. And many of the working -- in fact, probably all the people that we classify.... I think the minister talked about the Premier's forum and what's happening with employment. There are many people in the workforce who just cannot afford dental programs. On social assistance that's part of it, so in some ways, some of those programs that are available encourage a certain amount of dependency on the system.
The delinquent dads -- I certainly will support the minister in that totally. I have absolutely no time for delinquent dads when it comes to not paying their maintenance programs and not looking after the children they fathered. There are far too many of them. I agree with getting tough on those dads. There are, as the member for Vancouver-Langara spoke of, a few mothers, but let me tell you that in the mainstream they're probably 98 percent male. Anything we can do to make those people in society start paying for what they should be paying for, and that's looking after the children they fathered....
Now, regarding the family maintenance program, the minister talked a bit about it and how the maintenance orders are up. I suspect, then, that if we are finally getting to a point where the family maintenance program and some of the fathers will start paying, we should see a reduction in, specifically, single moms who have to depend on Social Services. With the increases that the minister is talking about -- 66 percent, 26 percent and 30 percent increases just in the last few months -- I suspect that we should see a reduction in the next year that's fairly significant, if we stay on that same curve. I hope what the minister is saying is in fact true, and it's there.
Secondly, the family maintenance program.... I'm not quite sure about it, but I think there have to be more agreements made with other provinces. It has to become more of a federally driven program, so that fathers cannot just leave one province and go to another -- leave British Columbia and go to Ontario. Is the minister working with the federal government? I know she doesn't like the federal Chretien government. She's spoken about the Liberal government many times tonight.
But is she working and endeavouring to set up programs to enforce family maintenance across the country in a more simplified manner than what we have now? As I understand it, males just leave. They're very mobile, they don't have any ties, and away they go, and they enjoy a continued good life. Their offspring are in poverty, and the public is picking up the bill.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I've got to be careful not to filibuster my own estimates here, because this is an issue that is very dear to my own heart, and I know it is for the member opposite as well.
Let me address four issues around the issue of child support. One is setting child support guidelines and educating the judiciary. We need federal help here to have some sort of maintenance guidelines, because the judiciary will not cooperate. They will go to the lowest number possible. It's mind-boggling how the judiciary can say $99 a month for a child.
The next issue is getting maintenance orders for children, and that's what we do. That's what our family maintenance program is. Then the enforcement of orders across Canada is a crucial issue, and we're working with reciprocal arrangements. The Attorney General is working for reciprocal arrangements with other provinces, and we're taking the lead on that. But you're quite right: it should be an across-Canada enforcement program. The last issue, of course, is helping women to move to complete independence.
So those are the four stages around assisting single-parent families off welfare and into work, and all of the suggestions that the hon. member makes are valued, and we agree with them.
The Chair: Shall vote 53 pass?
K. Jones: Just love to see your humour attempts, hon. Chair.
I'd like to ask the minister if she could tell us how many FTEs there have been for each of the last five years -- inspectors that are looking into fraud within the ministry.
The Chair: I understand the question bears repeating, so if the member would try again....
[ Page 15358 ]
K. Jones: I get the indication that I need to carry on. It is most unusual that I get asked to speak longer.
Hon. Chair, I'd like to get an idea of how many inspectors the Ministry of Social Services has had, working on a regular basis over each of the last five years, looking into fraud in the social services area. Hopefully, the minister would be able to give us an indication of that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, I'd be happy to get this for you. It's in Hansard, at the very beginning of our estimates. Therefore I'd be happy to confirm my answer that I gave earlier in the debate in estimates. I'll just tell you now that there are 95 in total in the prevention, compliance and enforcement division. For instance, the director is new; the special investigators are new in the last five years; the regional supervisors are new; nine eligibility officers are new; 18 assistant ministry investigators are new; and there is a corollary of administrative support to those that are new.
K. Jones: There are 95, and there were 95 five years ago. Is that what the minister is saying? Or 95 minus some management people? Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. Again, we have canvassed this. There are 95 now. Of those 95, a director is new and five special investigators are new -- there's six; there are nine regional supervisors who are new; there are nine eligibility officers who are new; there are 18 assistant ministry investigators who are new; and a percentage of clerical support -- perhaps eight or nine clerical support who have been added to support those new investigators.
K. Jones: Based on that, we're looking at, say, 50. Fifty people have been added -- when? This year or over the last five years? Hon. J. MacPhail: Over the last two years.
K. Jones: Fifty additional people have been brought in in the last two years, which would mean that there would have been 45 people originally working in the ministry doing fraud investigation from 1989 on.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
K. Jones: So this has meant that.... The minister announced an additional task force. How many people were involved in that task force, hon. minister?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the hon. member referring to the special investigations unit? Yes? Okay. There are five special investigators with the appropriate clerical support.
K. Jones: Is that in addition to the 95 or is that included in the 95?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll say this for the third time -- okay? There are 95 people in the prevention, compliance and enforcement division. Newly added in the last two years are approximately 53 people, perhaps 54. Among those new additions are five special investigators comprising the special investigations unit.
[9:45]
K. Jones: How many inspectors have been seconded or borrowed from other ministries?
Hon. J. MacPhail: None.
K. Jones: Would the minister like to indicate whether any of the inspectors that are currently working in the ministry doing fraud investigation are actually assigned to the Ministry of Health?
Hon. J. MacPhail: None that we're aware of. However, some of these projects require some sort of secrecy. If the member opposite is asking us to investigate this, we surely will.
K. Jones: The information I have received would say that there have been no additional persons hired this past year for that special task force or special investigation unit. Actually, they are only people who have been moved from other ministerial positions, including Ministry of Health fraud investigators as well as Ministry of Social Services fraud investigators. Those areas have gone without any investigation as a result of that. The areas that were formerly covered by those other investigators have ceased to have investigative work done. Therefore it was not actually a case of getting on with making all these great savings, but just transferring them from one area to another. Could the minister respond to this information?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes: the hon. member is dead wrong.
K. Jones: I hope the minister is correct. After doing further work she may come back to us and indicate that her staff is fully aware of this being the case.
Could the minister tell us whether there are any special programs to deal with the large number of WCB claimants who regularly end up on income assistance or other Social Services programs? Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting. I'd be more than interested to know the member's views on Bill 20, which was just introduced and was vociferously decried by his party, because, in fact, Bill 20 provides for data-matching internally to agencies within government, including WCB.
K. Jones: I am not particularly interested in data-matching. I'm more interested in persons who, before they can get their claims handled by WCB because of the long delay in getting them processed, are ending up on social assistance after using up their UI, disability assistance programs and personal company assistance programs. Is there anything that the ministry is doing, aside from just claiming the money back from WCB when they finally get around to doing their job?
Hon. J. MacPhail: What would the member suggest?
K. Jones: The member has a great opportunity here. I would be very happy to suggest that the minister make very direct indications or report to WCB as to the number of persons who are ending up on social assistance when they should actually be getting proper claim settlements out of
[ Page 15359 ]
WCB, and stop this crazy bureaucratic runaround that is really destroying people's lives. I think that these people don't deserve that kind of treatment just because they happen to have an accident on the job site.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Then the hon. member speaks in support of Bill 20, because that's exactly what the data-matching between the WCB and income assistance, to prepare for representation to the WCB on off-loading onto the income assistance cases, will be able to achieve under Bill 20.
K. Jones: I'm very pleased to see that something constructive is going to come out of that bill.
Could the minister tell us what the cost was of making the move from the site established for the social assistance office adjoining the Fleetwood Elementary School site -- right next to the playground where the kids from Fleetwood Elementary School play -- to several blocks to the east? Was that move from Cloverdale to Fleetwood really the proper method of serving the people of that area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is an issue that we canvassed in last year's estimates, and I congratulate the member for participating with the community in making decisions to relocate the office. The lease expired, and we had to find new office space. You know that the process resulted in community involvement, with your inclusion, to find appropriate space that was agreed upon by the community. Beyond that, we can refer to last year's estimates notes.
K. Jones: What we were trying to find out was: because of the poor planning on the original decision, how much did it actually cost to take corrective action and move it to a site that was not going to be adjoining the elementary school site?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thought I answered that question. I am trying to be generous here, because the member probably doesn't recall the debate of last year, but we did canvass that. We moved the site so that we could meet the community's needs. The community objected that it would be near a school, and we....
K. Jones: How much did it cost?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't think extra costs were incurred. We reconfigured. I mean, the lease had expired, and we were engaging in establishing a new lease. I don't think there were extra costs incurred.
K. Jones: Maybe I can just enlighten the minister in regard to this. In the meetings it was pointed out by B.C. Buildings Corporation that to not follow through with the lease was going to cost $250,000. We know that the ministry did not utilize all of the space in that building. There must have been some loss if the price that the B.C. Buildings Corporation quoted was correct. Or is that the actual price that the ministry ended up paying for that site adjoining the elementary school?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an appropriate question for BCBC, but I'll take it upon myself to get that information for the hon. member.
K. Jones: Thank you, minister. Could the minister just answer a few more questions? We will probably wind up here. With regard to hiring inspectors for fraud investigation, what method is used to assess the background of the inspectors?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We have hired an ex-RCMP officer of great experience and great reputation as the director of the prevention, compliance and enforcement division, Mr. Merv Harrower. He has been on the job for about a year and has put in place a hiring process that meets all of the needs of the public service hiring process: written tests, applications, references, an interview process -- skills, knowledge, responsibility and experience. There is also the job posting, the short-listing, an interview panel and a reference check.
K. Jones: Is this done on a regular annual basis, or only at hiring time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two aspects to provincial public service hiring. One is that when there's a vacancy we fill it. The other is that we do annual performance evaluations that encompass standards of evaluation.
K. Jones: Is there any review of a person's previous or current work or criminal record done on an annual basis, or is it just done at the time of hiring?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Criminal-record checks are done on people in the ministry working with vulnerable children or adults with disabilities. They're done at the time of hiring. There was also an agreement between the unions about how one proceeds with past employees.
K. Jones: Sorry, I couldn't quite hear the last part of what you said with regard to past employees.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The criminal-records check on current employees dealing with vulnerable people or people with disabilities is covered by the collective agreement, and it is a cross-government policy.
K. Jones: Are fraud investigators included in this check of criminal records?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. When the fraud investigators were hired under the Bill Bennett government, I guess, they chose not to consider them as part of a regular peace officer force. Rest assured that I am in the process of changing that policy so that new people hired will have criminal-record checks done.
K. Jones: Has this new special person, who is responsible for checking the staff members, got a mandate with regard to any of these fraud investigators to check them on an annual basis?
Hon. J. MacPhail: A criminal-record check, hon. member?
K. Jones: Yes.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
K. Jones: Although this person has been in the job for over a year now, I guess that's the reason there was no
[ Page 15360 ]
identification of one of the employees in Surrey having had a previous criminal record. This person was found guilty and placed on probation prior to the time of being hired. But if some checks had been done, it might have been found that this person was currently carrying out criminal activities. Ultimately, they have now come forward, and to their surprise, the ministry found out that this person was dealing with counterfeit U.S. money. I'm still trying to get an explanation about why this person was allowed to work as a welfare fraud investigator for the ministry since 1987. The fact that the person had a criminal record, which was not brought forward and was not known by the ministry, certainly puts in question the whole process of who we've got doing fraud investigation in the province. There appears to be no method of checking persons' backgrounds. If that's the kind of process there for fraud investigation -- that people who are doing fraud investigation are able to print their own money -- I'd hate to see what might happen with these people who are checking people who are supposed to be making sure that young people aren't at risk. I hope that the investigation into them is a little more thorough than in this case.
[10:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The person in question that the member refers to was hired as a fraud investigator well before our government's time -- 1986. I share the member's concern about ensuring that new hires have criminal-record checks done, and I'm committed to doing that.
But if the member is advocating, on a public service basis, that there be annual criminal-record checks, I'd be interested to have him specify that, and we can discuss it then. I think the public service itself would be very interested in that position.
K. Jones: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is going to follow through on this further. I am concerned that there needs to be something to check on persons as they continue in employment in the very critical role that they have. I'm not saying that a criminal investigation should be done on all employees -- definitely not; I'm against that myself. But in the case of people who are in critical roles, such as fraud investigators, the people who are being investigated by these people have a right to know that they are honest people looking into their affairs and that they do not have to be put to the possibility of having a criminal investigating criminal activities or innocent activities. It's for that reason that I bring this up, and I'm glad to hear that the minister is going to look further into it.
Seeing the hour, I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me advise the House that we will be sitting on Wednesday afternoon.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 7:25 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $407,230 (continued).
L. Reid: Prior to the recess, we were on small business. I have a couple of questions on small business before heading into the sectoral training partnerships. The small business partnerships we have touched on in a fair bit of detail. I am interested in knowing how they fit into the overall economic plan for this province. Where does this minister intend to take small business partnerships?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm being challenged in terms of brevity. That's a pretty wide-open question. Needless to say, we are working with business and others in the province to see how we can cooperate in terms of training programs. We believe that a highly skilled workforce is one of the keys to economic success.
L. Reid: The minister made comments in the past regarding sectoral training partnerships. The one that's often touted as the example is the one in Tourism. I'd be interested to have the minister comment on the ones in film, animation and telecommunications -- careers that will have some application in the future. Can he comment on whether this province has made any headway in terms of firming up some of those sectoral partnerships?
Hon. D. Miller: I think the member is missing the point with respect to the program. I don't have a list in front of me; maybe there are examples of where we might find this working in the fields she referred to. More appropriately, though, the field that she is talking about -- the high technology sector -- is not where you'll see significant progress made as a result of the sectoral approach. This is intended to deal with the issue of people on social assistance getting the kinds of skills to stay off it and maintain employment.
Those other areas are being dealt with quite well through the changes that have been made to the post-secondary system: the development of degree-granting responsibility at four community colleges and two of the institutes, the development of six new technology-based programs at the community college level and the promotion of vocational-
[ Page 15361 ]
technical programs at the high school and the college levels, all of which are geared to equip people with the skills that are in demand in our economy.
L. Reid: I would draw the minister's attention to the question. If he is not able this evening to provide comment on those particular examples that I noted, I would simply ask for some examples of current sectoral partnerships that are functioning, because it appears that there are very few in place. I would ask the minister to frame the question around how it fits in with the overall economic strategy for this province.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I did answer the question; the member may not appreciate the answer. I'll just give some examples of the 25 sectoral training partnerships that have been formed involving 600 businesses and affecting 20,000 employees. Some examples: Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism; Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre; the Society of the Plastics Industry of Canada, B.C. Chapter; Precision Metal Forming Association; and the Retail Merchants' Association of B.C. We're projecting 30 partnerships this year, involving 700 businesses and about 25,000 employees.
L. Reid: This entire discussion is about some type of credentialing. If these folks are going to have their performance evaluated, I trust at some point they're going to end up with some kind of documentation or certification -- a rung on a ladder that may lead them to additional or advanced training of some sort. Again, I would make the points I've attempted to make earlier in this debate: I'm not convinced there are performance reviews in place or that there is any type of ongoing evaluation. With respect to the sectoral partnership, I would ask the minister to comment on any evaluation that is currently in place and on when the taxpaying public might expect a report.
[7:30]
Hon. D. Miller: As I've indicated time and time again, we do evaluations. When they're finished, they'll be available to the member and other people in the public.
L. Reid: Prior to the recess this afternoon, the minister took great delight in suggesting that this program is absolutely outstanding. My comment is simply: based on what? If there isn't any type of evaluation in place.... The potential for evaluation is enormous. You could create some very, very fine programs around evaluation. There are all kinds of outside experts that could be called in to deliver on a product. It seems that there's a lack of will to do that. There's certainly no lack of resources. There's certainly no lack of fine minds out there who could be asked to create some kind of formative evaluation, leading up to some kind of formalized evaluation over time.
I'm not clear how much longer this minister can hold off before he says something that has some substance to it in terms of evaluation on these programs. I think they're worthy of some kind of intense scrutiny. I don't think there are many folks out there who disagree with the intention. I think the intention is fine; I think the motivation must be better understood, and the financing must be better understood. Performance has to be a concern to the minister as well as to myself. I only hope that it's a concern when this is the individual who has been entrusted with shelling out taxpayer dollars for the entire range of programs under the four components of the Skills Now program. In terms of a strategic plan around evaluation, I know that in the last two days of debate we have not heard that. I trust that at some point the minister will tell us when it is coming. It's not sufficient to simply say it is coming. That lends no reassurance to this debate in any way, shape or form.
I want to move ahead in this evening's discussion on a number of different issues. First, on accreditation and PASS, the Post-Secondary Application Service of British Columbia, I want the minister to make one or two brief comments on the effectiveness of this program and the possibility of cost savings.
Hon. D. Miller: I would like to respond to the first point. It's a matter of public record. In fact, the critic may want to talk to the partners in the system in terms of how we put Skills Now together by consulting in a very detailed way with the business community, labour and others. We put together something that was broadly supported and remains broadly supported. I could spend a lot of time and a lot of money hiring bean-counters, but I'm interested in results. I want results; I don't want to spend my time looking at every comma in a sentence. I want results, and, quite frankly, nobody in this province has been doing this.
L. Reid: How are you measuring your results?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm measuring my results by the number of businesses that subscribe to these programs. I'm measuring the results by what I hear directly from business leaders when I sit down and talk to them about these programs. I'm measuring results by the number of workers, some 32,000, who have benefited from these programs. That's how I'm measuring results -- by cost-effectiveness, using a very small amount of money and levering money from the private sector. Those are real results -- real British Columbians getting skills, and real employers participating in these programs. You can spend all your time counting beans and never doing anything, but that's not what we're about over here. We're about getting results and the results are there -- the performance of all of these programs under Skills Now is there. I venture to say that I could bring people here from the business community, the labour community, the education community or from any place you care to name, and they will testify to the results and to the efficiency. We'll do our program reviews -- we already do those -- but we are absolutely on the right track. These programs are what should have been delivered many years ago in this province, and we're now delivering them. It seems to me that the enthusiasm of the partners is proof positive that these are the right programs for British Columbia.
L. Reid: Certainly the question related to our past when there was no Post-Secondary Application Service for British Columbia. Now that it is in place, could the minister comment on whether we can realize any cost savings from that?
Hon. D. Miller: That system has been in the works for some time. It was started before I came to this current ministry. I understand that the plan is to phase in the program starting with high school graduates. There will be a nominal cost for students using the system. When it's fully implemented, the benefits should be to have a much better system in terms of tracking demand. Arguably, the conventional
[ Page 15362 ]
wisdom had it that there were 20,000 students who wanted to get into the post-secondary system -- I spoke on this at some length previously in the estimates -- and we didn't have a very effective way of measuring that. There were dual applications: people who applied to more than one college, for example, or more than one university for a myriad of courses. When it's fully implemented, the system should allow us a much better look at that, and that will ultimately benefit both the students and the institutions.
K. Jones: I would just like to go back to the minister's statement a few moments ago about the programs that have trained 32,000 persons. How many of these have full-time permanent jobs as a result of that training?
Hon. D. Miller: All the people I've cited in the three programs are in the workplace now.
K. Jones: How many of those jobs are full-time, permanent jobs?
Hon. D. Miller: Without being absolutely certain as to the number of hours that each individual.... I didn't bring the records from my office of detailed hours on every individual in the system. They are all working full-time.
K. Jones: How often does the ministry monitor these persons in their new jobs, and for how long will it continue to monitor them?
Hon. D. Miller: It depends on the program. Is the member familiar with the programs he is talking about? Of the three, which one in particular is he talking about?
K. Jones: I am talking about all of them.
Hon. D. Miller: The member asked me questions about these people. I have talked at length about this, and I wonder which specific program the member is asking questions about.
K. Jones: The one that the minister just spoke about having 32,000 trained persons in it.
Hon. D. Miller: If the member had been paying attention, he'd realize that they are not all under one program; in fact, there are a number of programs. Perhaps the member could signify which particular one he has an interest in or perhaps we might conclude that he simply doesn't know.
K. Jones: The minister has asked and has been responded to: we are interested in the 32,000 who were trained. How many of them have been given full-time, permanent jobs? How often are they monitored to show that they have these full-time jobs? How long will they continue to be monitored?
Hon. D. Miller: It's obvious that the member doesn't really understand the nature of the programs. For example, the one program that I did talk at length about, the quick-response training program, delivers training that might be of a relatively short duration. I talked about the 85 projects that took place in the last fiscal year, the 42 businesses that subscribed to the quick-response training program and the 3,917 employees who received training. I did say that we would get a comprehensive list of every one of those projects to the opposition for their perusal. Some of that training has been delivered already. It's over; it's past. Those people are working in the establishments that subscribed to the training. Obviously they are better off because they received that training. The employer is also better off. There are a number of programs, hon. member, and one needs to have some appreciation of the difference between the programs -- the difference, for example, between a short training program and the small business training partnership, which is longer-term, where people on income assistance can be brought in under the sectoral training partnership. At any given time, one needs to have some appreciation of the nature of the programs in order to press questions on whether people are employed, going to school or what have you. That's the only point I was trying to make.
K. Jones: The minister really hasn't paid attention to the questions I've been asking. They're specifically related to his statement that all 32,000 persons who were trained have full-time, permanent jobs. He proceeded to say that they were being monitored, so therefore he knew that they were in full-time jobs. I repeat the question: how long have these jobs been monitored and how long is it projected the government will continue to monitor them to know whether or not those persons really have a permanent job?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, you may want to determine when we've canvassed an issue thoroughly. For example, the Quick Response training program was canvassed rather thoroughly. I've tried to explain to the member -- and I used the example of the Canadian Woodworks Ltd. project up in Prince George -- that the training has been delivered. That training is gone now; it's in the past. Those people are still working in the plant, where they worked before.
We don't monitor the hiring policies or whether or not individuals are still working with a company a year after the company has applied for a training program with Quick Response. I hope the member would appreciate why that would not be a very desirous thing to do. With all due respect, you need to have some appreciation of the nature of the program in order to canvass the issue, and we've done that fairly thoroughly.
K. Jones: It's evident that the minister, claiming to have identified that these people all have full-time jobs, doesn't have that information. He's trying to work his way around the fact that he doesn't have that information and is actually trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes to make it look like he knows these people have jobs. Now the minister has admitted that that information isn't available, because they're not monitoring it. That's the truth of the previous half-hour of presentation, I presume: there isn't a method of monitoring. Therefore the minister's statement about wanting and expecting results is unmeasurable, because the minister doesn't have a means of knowing whether he has results or not. That's our real concern. There isn't a measuring process in this at all. The programs provide some training, and nobody knows what the results are after they've done the training -- whether they're effective, whether they're getting full-time jobs or anything else. By the minister's own admission, there is no method of checking on them, because that wouldn't be proper.
[ Page 15363 ]
Perhaps the minister, after some advice from staff, has a different view on that. If he has more details at this point, I now give him the opportunity to present them.
Hon. D. Miller: I certainly could provide the member with a list of some of the projects by category. He may wish, in pursuit of this issue, which I know he has pursued zealously, to contact either employers or the individuals employed to ascertain whether it is their view that the training programs were successful. It's certainly our view that they were. As I indicated, some of these programs were oversubscribed; we couldn't meet the demand. I suppose, had we increased our budget, we would have been criticized by the Liberals for spending too much money. Nonetheless, I guess we can bear that without too much concern at all.
[7:45]
I could send the member a description of the programs, which might assist him in pursuing the questions. I'm having some difficulty here, because they are different types of programs. The member has asked a very general question which is not germane to the specifics of each of the programs. I did cite the quick-response training program as an example. I indicated that the quick-response training program is one that would see a specific level of training made available to employees at a particular plant or location. It obviously would not be ongoing. It's not necessarily there to.... Unlike some of the other programs, where there was an issue of trying to retrain people so they could retain their jobs, this particular case was an example of a program that would provide training to make an operation more efficient.
There are others delivered in the forest sector, particularly in the Prince George region. All the companies, because increasingly there is a need to kiln-dry lumber, yet different technologies are used at different plants.... The industry formed an association of those people who were involved in kiln-drying wood. They put together a proposal for a training program that recognized the differences between some of the very large operators and the small operators, and the different technology that was in use in kiln-drying wood. We funded that under the quick-response training program.
The benefits are enormous. I talked to some of the mill managers in Prince George about the program, and they were absolutely delighted. In their view, this was exactly the kind of program that was needed. They saw a direct benefit to industry. Do we track all the employees or each of those employers? No, we don't. We're content in analyzing what they put forward in terms of an application for a program. It made sense to industry and to the workers. They pay part of the cost; we pay part of the cost. It seemed to be a natural, really, with respect to ensuring that industries maintained their competitiveness and that the understanding of the application of that kiln-drying technology was widespread across the industries between large and small. I see my friend from Vanderhoof there; I think he understands a little of what I'm talking about.
From my point of view, that was generally successful, and there are others around the province. Just to give you an overview, without mentioning the names of employers, here are some examples of the kinds of programs that were put together under quick-response. There was a company that was able to put into practice a management training....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: If the member thinks I'm treading water, I can assure the member that I am trying to give an answer to a question. If the question was simply intended to delay, as uninformed as it was, I'm trying my best to give a responsible answer. If it's game-playing, then fine: let's get at it. If the member wants to listen to this, and if the member wants to be informed.... It's obvious that the member doesn't understand even one of the programs I've been talking about. When I did ask him a question, he couldn't answer it. If it's just game-playing here, I guess we'll continue to play games. I'll continue to talk about the programs that we're delivering under this ministry and, as I understand it, that the Liberal caucus wants to put an end to.
Here's a company that has put into practice a management training system in which employees working in teams have more authority and responsibility for their actions. In essence, the company's lines of authority have become less hierarchical. This has reduced labor-management tension; it has improved productivity and employee attitudes. A small company in an industry without apprenticeship training has been able to upgrade the skills of its sales staff in areas that are undergoing rapid technological growth, especially in terms of the computer skills necessary to do their jobs. Such training was not available elsewhere. A pesticide application course that was previously available only in English was made available in Punjabi. Although the material had been developed in advance of the quick-response training project, neither the college nor the Ministry of Agriculture could afford to pay the tuition for fieldworkers to take the course. It probably benefits members of your constituency, hon. member.
Hospital food service workers who were about to lose their jobs were retrained as certified care aid workers, an area with known job openings. Because of the very quick response of the program, it was possible to do this without any interruption to the workers' employment. Those are just some examples, hon. member. Perhaps you might care to say whether you agree with that approach or not.
K. Jones: I have no questions about the process of the training programs themselves. I'm trying to find out if the ministry has any method of determining value-for-money accountability for the program. What I've heard so far is that the minister has tried to take a long time to fill time -- yes, treading water -- because he doesn't have the answers. He doesn't have a program of accountability for the program.
Hon. D. Miller: My job in these estimates is not to educate members of the opposition who don't know anything about what they're saying, who haven't got the foggiest idea about any of the elements of Skills Now. My job is to answer questions, and so far I haven't deciphered a question from this member that has made any sense whatsoever.
L. Reid: I just have two additional remarks on sectoral agreements. One refers to what I perceive to be the need for sectoral partnership individuals who are working in this area to get out into the field and be proactive. If they're going to create relationships around high-tech companies and entrepreneurial companies, there seems to be tremendous opportunity, in that British Columbia is attracting a number of high-tech firms and individuals in telecommunications. I think it's important that this ministry takes a look at getting out in the field and cementing some of those partnerships.
[ Page 15364 ]
I've had some dealings with Lee Doney on the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, and I would only applaud the work that he's doing. I think he's very far-reaching in his thinking, and I think he will be successful in bringing in-house some of the new businesses, if you will -- some of the new activities that I have said to this minister will result in employment. This minister and I can agree on employment. We may not agree on the best methodology to achieve that, but if, at the end of the day, we have individuals who are gainfully employed.... That comes back to my point which I've consistently tried to make with the minister: what happens year one, year five and year ten? What's happening to these people? It has to be more than just filling spaces in the programs.
In terms of high-tech companies and entrepreneurial companies, I think this sectoral training program, as one of the components of small business partnership, makes the most sense. I can only applaud the work. I think it's got tremendous unrealized potential today. If there were resources that the ministry had at its disposal, I would welcome additional resources flowing to this particular aspect of the program.
In terms of where we've come today, I believe we've canvassed in some detail retraining workers in their communities, moving people from welfare to the workforce and linking high school to the workplace. Admittedly, a number of details that I received on linking high school to the workplace were in a separate briefing through the Ministry of Education. That's absolutely fine; I certainly welcome the information.
My colleague from Prince George wishes to rise on some student loan questions, and then perhaps we'll lead into the fourth component of the Skills Now, which is opening more doors to colleges and universities.
L. Fox: I thank the official critic for allowing me to re-enter these estimates. Before we get into the student loans issue, I want to talk about the student summer works program, 1995, which is under the Skills Now initiative. I've gone over the prerequisites within the program, both for the student and for the employer. First of all, let me say that I support student summer projects; in fact, I wish we had the opportunity to make more jobs available for students. I think that experience adds to their educational background not only from a monetary perspective but also from an education perspective. I think that the more opportunities students have to work as they achieve their education, the better they will do in terms of their post-secondary education as well as in the line that they choose.
When I read, for instance, which employers are eligible to apply, it's a pretty broad statement there in terms of who is eligible to apply for a student. Also, particularly in my area, we see that the agencies which are handling these applications are the Prince George Native Friendship Centre, the Vanderhoof and District Chamber of Commerce, Northwest Community College in Terrace and so on. The first question I have is: are there fairly solid and straightforward guidelines for how the respective business is chosen when we have about ten approval bodies approving the process? Are there consistent guidelines available to these agencies so that the program is interpreted and applied in exactly the same way out of all the ten offices?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we put out for bid the issue of host agencies. In fact, if you look at all the host agencies, you'll see that some of them are repeats -- for example, Northwest Community College, which thinks a lot of the program. I mean, it's fairly modest; it's $3 million; it's not a lot of money. But it does allow them to work with employers in their region to see whether employers want to participate, and it does give students some opportunity for employment, although probably the wage rates are not high. It is essentially a wage supplement. I think the guidelines are fairly clear; they're laid out by the ministry. It wasn't exactly a long period in terms of the host agencies being able to put in a bid to do it again, but it didn't take long. They're all in place. I'm not certain whether I have dealt with the member's question. Go ahead and rephrase it or ask it again.
L. Fox: I guess I was looking for whether the program is being administered consistently in all ten locations. Are the criteria specific enough for who qualifies, in terms of both the employer and the student, so that it's administered exactly the same in all ten administrative centres?
Hon. D. Miller: We did look at that. We have tightened up the guidelines a bit, but I'm not terribly concerned about that. We'll provide you with that information.
I've had two occasions to talk to people who have been part of the program. Once was up in Kamloops with the native friendship centre -- that may not be the correct title -- where they brought in some of the students and some of the employers to meet with me, and they seemed to be quite pleased with the program. As well, I met with Northwest Community College last year to talk about their experience with the program. Consistently, what I get more than any questions relative to criteria or anything else is: "Can't you get some more money into this program?" But we will make that information available to you, hon. member.
L. Fox: I recognize that the program is underfunded, and there are good reasons for that. But I think this is one of those good initiatives where if you put a buck in, you get a buck back -- that's a good exercise for the most part. But I asked those questions earlier because there appeared to be a change.
I had two phone calls from the Prince George region, both from small business people who had employed students through the program in the past, and they were told that their training program was not sufficient to meet the criteria now. Yet I know of others -- for instance, a water-bottling company where the individual is employed and does nothing more than fill bottles all day long. I have to question the educational value of that versus the opportunity to work in a small business where they do a whole host of things, including stocking shelves and pricing the inventory. I guess they learn all the bare bones of what a small business is in terms of the day-to-day operations. That led me to question how that one business was chosen while the other two were denied. They had employed students for two or three years, and they understood the need to educate and show the students a whole host of experience through summer employment. So even though it's a small amount of money, at least in my view and in this instance, it seems that we somehow missed an opportunity. I think we shortened the opportunity for at least one of these students. As I understand it, he'll be sitting all summer filling water bottles. I don't see a lot of training in that particular job.
[ Page 15365 ]
I make the minister aware of that concern. I see him nodding his head, so I know he sees my point. That's why I was asking about the specifics of how these employees were approved and whether or not they were consistent from one particular administrative office to another.
Hon. D. Miller: The member makes a point. Without really knowing a lot of detail, I think that's the kind of information we want to get. As I said, we have tightened up some of the criteria.
Obviously, you want a dual benefit from this type of program. One benefit is the employment of students. Let's face it, it's tough these days. There has been some opening up, though. Some of the mills are actually hiring summer employment. That may not be extensive at this point, but I can tell you, that disappeared for a long time. We also want them to get something out of employment.
I appreciate the member's comments. If he has anything in terms of specifics, I'd be pleased to receive it. It would be helpful for us in terms of our evaluation.
L. Fox: That is the next question: what evaluation process is in place, if there is one? I recognize that you're not going to spend a lot of money evaluating a $3 million program. I wonder if there is a prerequisite in proposals that they bring back a report on how successful they have been in terms of their initiative.
Hon. D. Miller: There is a requirement for reporting back. I appreciate the member's understanding that in this type of program, you don't want to commit lots of resources. I think there are lots of repeaters in the host agencies as well. It seems to me there's a level of expertise, if you like, that builds up. As I recall, I certainly thought there was when I discussed these issues with Northwest Community College .
That doesn't mean that somebody doesn't wind up in a job filling water bottles all day or whatever. I know when I was an apprentice, the tradespeople used to tell me that there really was some merit in knowing how to sweep floors, clean up and clean the tradesmen's tools -- and there was, actually. I later passed that advice on to apprentices who worked under me.
Again, if there are specifics or if there's some criticism or information that you think would be useful to us, don't hesitate to pass it on. We will use it in our evaluation.
L. Fox: Just for the record, in the first two months of my five-year apprenticeship to become a goldsmith and watchmaker, I too swept the floor, looked for gold specks and so on.
Hon. D. Miller: It's made you who you are today.
L. Fox: That's right.
I want to get into student loans for just for a moment. It's not around specifics, but more in terms of what the minister talked about earlier -- an evaluation of the whole thing and some of the causes of the problems. I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to the terms of reference for that whole evaluation. What are we looking at? Are we looking at how many dropouts there are in the first year? Are we looking at a process of tracking the success of students, or how many of them have left the country or the province? I know we are looking at what the minister talked about earlier -- creating a new deal with the banking industry.
I'm interested in the problem-solving exercise. What is the ministry going through to do a whole evaluation of the student loan process?
Hon. D. Miller: As I've indicated, the primary thrust at this point is to go to the banking industry with a request for proposals and to see what is possible on the savings side, having the banks, if you like, take the risk for a fee. That's also being done at the federal level. I'm not certain about other provinces. So we think there are savings there. We talked about that before the dinner break.
I also talked about some preliminary analysis that we are doing with respect to the performance of institutions. In other words, taking all of the institutions in British Columbia and looking at them strictly from the point of view of those students who do take out student loans, and trying to form some opinions or judgments about that. What has their experience been? Do students pay them back? Do they have a high default rate? Do some institutions work with the students in a better way than others? Those are the kinds of questions we need to zero in on, because if we see that there's a single institution that has a very high default rate among the students attending it, then it seems to stand out. So we're looking at how we might explore that question.
More broadly based, we have some concern about the whole system. The federal government has indicated.... It's hard to know where they are, but they started off talking about changing to an income-contingent system. They talked about the impact of the federal cuts leading to dramatic increases in tuition fees and that somehow this income contingent would allow students, even though there would be very high loans, to pay them off. There's a lot of work being done, but there have been no decisions at this point, at least on the federal side, as to what they might do.
I guess this really moves into the tuition side, but if tuitions increase dramatically, how do we respond to that? How do we deal with that? B.C. student financial assistance is a pretty big amount of money. In the budget this year we've got $70 million, or something like that. Part of that is writing off.... You can appreciate that this is a very large bill, and the increased demand would be somewhat problematic. Quite frankly, I don't have a solution to that particular problem. It's one we're grappling with as we try to deal with the changes that are coming from the federal side, but without a great deal of certainty about what they are at this point.
We really are concentrating our efforts to try to ensure that the system we have is efficient, that we get the best kind of payback from the system that we possibly can, and obviously the better we do, the more money that's available to more students. So I think that's appropriate for the time being. I can't think of any other particular initiatives that need to be taken. I'm interested in seeing what we get back from the banks.
L. Fox: Just another question: does the minister have any numbers in terms of percentages? What percentage of the loans that are defaulted on come from individuals who have dropped out of the educational process at some point? Do you have any numbers in terms of that? Would that be the objec-
[ Page 15366 ]
tive of a further review of the loans system; to identify the type of student who would typically have difficulties repaying that loan?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain we can give you that level of detail with respect to, say, dropouts -- correlate the default rate with personal experience. We haven't refined it to that level. But I would hazard a guess -- and I think someone earlier said it -- that most people don't really want to walk away from these loans. I agree with that. My own instinctive sense is it's related to people's ability to find post-graduation employment. One of the things we're looking at in terms of analyzing the programs is the impact on specific groups. Not meaning to single anybody out, but obviously single women with children would be in a higher risk category, because their opportunities are probably less. Normally, I think the member could agree with that, whether it's income-earning power, the ability to find employment or you name it.
We want to be careful that in analyzing and looking at changes in the program, we don't develop a program that is a barrier to those people. In a very real way, they're the ones who in some cases need that kind of assistance most, in terms of getting some higher level of post-secondary education so that their ability to work is enhanced.
A high risk is a high risk, but should we say that those people, because they're high-risk, shouldn't have the opportunity to attend post-secondary? I think we improve their employability chances. But we don't have that kind of breakdown, I'm talking very theoretically here now, and I think the member was, as well. I'll canvass my staff and just see what we might have in terms of what we might be able to send you by way of information along the lines that you're asking, but I don't think we've got the detail that you're asking for.
L. Fox: One reason I'm asking these questions is that I, like the minister, perceive that the demands for student loans are not going to decrease. In fact, they're going to increase substantially over the course of the next few years, for various reasons: (a) the population is growing; (b) the cost of education is getting higher -- whether it's tuition fees or personal expenses in terms of the grocery bill or the apartment or whatever the case may be. We're going to see an increasing demand. And I was trying to get clear in my mind....
If we're failing, we have an obligation to look at where we're failing. If indeed there is a social responsibility here -- and the minister talked about single women with children -- we may very well have a social responsibility to give them an opportunity to upgrade their skills in order to re-enter the workplace. I don't argue with that; in fact, I concur with that. But should we then be putting the stress on that individual by making it a loan or should we be accepting that we have the social responsibility to a certain class of people to educate them?
[8:15]
I'm looking at that aspect of it. I'm also trying to get clear in my mind -- and I don't have the answers, hon. Chair; I point that out.... I'm asking the questions, but I don't have the answers. The other part is that in order to design a system which meets the social obligation, we have to educate people of all ages after they've achieved their grade 12 in a post-secondary or in the advancement of a skill or whatever they choose to do. How best can we do it? How best can we administer the program? And if we're failing in some aspects or if we're not doing an appropriate job in our K-to-12 process of counselling individuals in terms of what their best opportunities are to achieve good, sound employment at the end of post-secondary education, perhaps there are all kinds of circumstances that would change this bottom line.
If we had a process where we involved some of those folks who had difficulties paying back their loans and tried to identify the problems and concerns that they run into and put emphasis on those, we may very well find out that our program, as we presently administer it, is not achieving the objectives and meeting the social demands that we might be able to meet if we knew all those complexities and difficulties that the students are running into. I'm dealing in hypotheses here and trying to identify some social objectives in this whole program.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the member raises some good questions. As I've indicated, we're reviewing some aspects currently. Some of that work is out there now, and we're waiting for the response to come back. We will be looking at other aspects in terms of reviewing the system.
Here are a couple of points to add to the debate. One is that we can't ignore the impact of the federal Canada student loans, because they do tie into our system.
Second, when I looked at the issues that I thought were important in the post-secondary system initially, when we were putting together Skills Now, it was my determination that the access question was far more important than the assistance question. That was a judgment call, but I think I was right. We had quite a large number of students who indicated they wanted to go to college or university but were not able to go because there were no spaces available. Then we looked at the other issue, which was affordability, etc. It was my view that access was the number one priority. We simply had to make more spaces available, and we did that. In fact, I think we've achieved a remarkable success in terms of the number of new full-time spaces.
We have, in a variety of ways, addressed that issue. One way was through the request for proposals, which is now with the banking community. We'll see what kind of response we get. We will be doing a program review, as well as keeping an eye on the feds to see what changes might occur in the federal system and the impact that might have on our provincial system.
The member raises some very good points, all of which will be considered in time. The terms of reference for our review of the system are being finalized. We are looking at these kinds of questions.
L. Fox: One final observation, rather than a question, that I would make is that it seems to me it would be difficult for the banking institution to come forward with a proposal until they knew what social values were going to be placed on.... As the minister suggested, access is the most important issue, and I don't quarrel with that. But if the banks are going to look at running a student loan program, I would assume that they're going to look at it from a business perspective in terms of a quality-of-loan program; they're institutions that loan money to be repaid. I'm wondering whether they can do that without the ministry or government addressing the social aspects first. That's the only question I have of the minister.
[ Page 15367 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Those are our criteria; that's all I can say.
L. Reid: I too have one or two questions on the student loan program. Based on material dated March 1995, it seems to me that there are 54,000 loan applications and 23,000 awards. Roughly half of those students were successful in achieving an award. The average value appears to be about $3,400. My question pertains to those individuals who are currently gainfully employed and are still not making reasonable payments in terms of their student loans. A number of people take great delight in telling me that they're paying $30 or $50 a month, and their salary is $30,000 a year. They are certainly in a position to make a reasonable payment on their student loans.
My question to the minister is about the review mechanism in place. Is there ever any attempt to accelerate some of these payments, based on someone's improved status? It seems to me that if these dollars are tied up in very extended payment plans, they are being denied to students who are making applications. As it states here, roughly half of the students are being denied. I'd be interested to know if it's possible to bring those dollars in-house from individuals who are in a position to pay. I am not at all speaking of students who are not gainfully employed, only of individuals who have work and are making a reasonable salary. Could the minister comment?
Hon. D. Miller: It is under the purview of the Minister of Finance. Once a loan is in default, it automatically goes over and the Ministry of Finance pursues it from there. I do believe they attempt to work out repayment schedules. I know that a number of years ago the Minister of Finance announced that for those loans where students resided out of province, he sent the balance of the loans to a collection agency. The question would be more properly addressed to the Minister of Finance.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. Since he raised the issue of credit collection, would the directive ever come from the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour in terms of putting some of these files into collection, or would that responsibility also appear under the Ministry of Finance?
Hon. D. Miller: Ministry of Finance.
K. Jones: I'd like to slip back into the apprenticeship area for a bit to explore with the minister whether the ministry is aware of some vacancies in high school shop programs. These programs could be utilized. There is also some difficulty in getting trained shop teachers to give these trades training courses. Is the minister aware of this?
Hon. D. Miller: Earlier we canvassed the in-school apprenticeship program quite extensively. I did indicate that in terms of direct financial responsibility, it was under the Ministry of Education. I did indicate that we anticipated that about 500 students would be enrolled in apprenticeship programs in high schools by September 1995. So the member will appreciate that we're trying to expand. I personally have not been advised of any difficulty with respect to obtaining qualified instructors.
There are some issues around the instructors that I think need to be worked on. The fact is that while a lot of them have been teaching various shop or trades classes in school for some time, they don't possess a valid trades qualification certificate. There may be some way that could be dealt with in terms of their ability to get that TQ. That's as much as I know.
K. Jones: That is definitely one of the problems -- getting the TQs. It seems there are a lot of people who are very well qualified in their technical ability and are well received as instructors, but because they don't have a TQ or a teacher's certificate, they're not able to operate in schools. There are some very good people who want to be there and are desired by the schools, but because technically they are not qualified, certified teachers, we're losing out. Apparently there's quite a demand for trades-training teachers in vocational school, particularly in the shop.
Hon. D. Miller: The member makes a good point. When I talked to high school vocational teachers, they expressed this inability to get a TQ. On the other side, the people who teach in our public school system are endorsed by the criteria laid out by the College of Teachers. Simple possession of the trades qualification doesn't mean that you have or can get the right to teach.
Under our system, in the vocational institutes you can.... I recall, for example, when I went through my apprenticeship, that the teacher at the time was a former millwright at Eburne Sawmill. In fact, he had done a lot of work on his own initiative. He had written the millwright's manual himself, and was a first-rate teacher.
It's the difference between the two systems. I don't have anything to do with the education K-to-12 system. I think there needs to be some protocol worked out, though. There's a wealth of practical experience, and I think it's important that we make it available to children in school. When I went to school and took shop, most of the shop teachers were a little different than the normal academic teachers. I think there was a good relationship built up there with some of those guys.
L. Reid: And women.
Hon. D. Miller: I respect the fact that women.... When I went to school, unfortunately there weren't women teaching those; in fact, there weren't even women taking the vocational courses in school. But, I agree.
I think the member touches on a good point, and one that does need to have some work, because people with practical experience can offer a lot. It's simply adding on the ability to teach and having them qualified under the college that's the issue.
K. Jones: I've got examples where the persons are qualified to teach at a vocational school and have taught there or at BCIT but aren't able to teach in a high school situation where there's a need for them and a desire. An example is an automotive mechanic who is very qualified. They cut back at BCIT where the person was working, and now the person is not able to get employment in that area because of not having a teacher's certificate when there's really nothing to do with the teaching certificate required in the job. Is there some way under Skills Training that the requirements in this area could be modified so that these are no longer required and the person is evaluated on their ability to present the program to
[ Page 15368 ]
the students with positive results? Rather than having a degree in something or a certificate in something, could they would bring their trades training and give trades training?
Hon. D. Miller: Look, as I indicated by my previous answer, the College of Teachers of B.C., under legislation, determines those issues, not my ministry. I'm not certain; I haven't heard -- that doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- that the demand issue has been a problem. If anything, I think the member earlier touched on a more valid point that there has been a steady drifting away from the vocational courses. It's coming back now, but there has been a drifting away from the vocational-technical courses offered in high school, which we thought was a terrible mistake. For that reason, we are promoting those in a very vigorous way. If that, indeed, results in an increased demand that can't be met by the existing university system that turn out the teachers, then we'll have more to say about that. It is conceivable that there could be a protocol or something worked out so that people who are qualified to teach.... One would presume that people who are qualified to teach in the vocational or technical schools might have the qualifications necessary to teach in our high schools.
[8:30]
K. Jones: The difficulty that these people are finding is that they have to take off and take time away from employment, which they don't have the ability to do, because they have families to look after. They have to spend about two years taking the courses required for the teaching certificate to become qualified to teach at a high school shop program where they're teaching no other subjects than shop. Surely we could work out with the college that this area doesn't require a teaching certificate to make them qualified, especially if they are qualified to teach at the vocational school or at the BCIT level and have been shown to have that experience.
Hon. D. Miller: The member has raised some good points, and to this point it's not been a particular problem, at least in terms of being able to hire vocational teachers or instructors. With the push we have put on apprenticeships, it may. I can't disagree with the member. The barriers to people with a trade application actually going on to take the required university courses plus the year's teaching is fairly onerous. We've tried, in a way, to design some of our delivery programs so that they're more flexible, more innovative, closer to home. Whether that offers a better opportunity for people in that position, I don't know. As I say, it's a situation we're prepared to watch, and if there's a need to take different measures, then that is something I'm quite prepared to consider.
K. Jones: I could identify at least one of my constituents who was in that situation. Would the minister agree to take some examples and maybe find some way of experimenting to eliminate the requirement for that piece of paper and work that out with the college so that we don't get hung up on the bureaucratic process when we've got persons who are desired both by the principal of the school and by the students? They are qualified and have previous experience in the educational field, but who just haven't got the time to take that certification. Is there a way that we could use some examples of this and try to open up that situation?
Hon. D. Miller: I really appreciate the point that the member has raised. I've indicated that I don't disagree with the points he's made, but I've also indicated that the responsibility and authority lie with the Minister of Education under the B.C. College of Teachers Act. I'm a bit out of my depth here -- not depth, I actually don't mean that -- when it comes to.... But it does....
L. Reid: It's not your area of expertise; let's put it that way.
An Hon. Member: He was treading water before, and now....
Hon. D. Miller: I can talk about anything, anywhere, anytime. Most of the time my problem is that I'm quite happy to talk about anything, anywhere, anytime. But not today. I think the member has raised a good point; I've tried to respond to it. But it does rest with the Minister of Education.
L. Fox: I failed to ask one final question; it could end up being a series of questions, depending on the minister's response. In 1992, under a previous minister, the Orum review was commissioned. My understanding is that there was a substantial expense attached to applying the recommendations. Can the minister tell me whether or not any consideration has been given -- without getting into future policy, and I'm not trying to do that -- to implementing some of the recommendations, or is the whole report shelved?
[T. Perry in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: We did respond to the Orum report. I did put out a release on that, and I'll make it available to you. Actually, I thought the Orum report commissioned by my predecessor was a good one. The difficulty we faced in looking at in excess of 100 recommendations in that report -- either 80 or 100, I can't recall exactly -- was that when we costed it out, we were talking, I believe.... L. Fox: A hundred and seventy-three.
Hon. D. Miller: A hundred and seventy-three recommendations? Yes. And I believe we were talking about the dollar value of about $140 million or $180 million to fully implement. I met with Jennifer Orum. And again, I want to say that I thought the report was actually quite a good one, but you don't always have the money that you would like to have. We did implement, and I will make that press release available to the member.
J. Dalton: When I walked in, my colleague from Cloverdale was talking about something to do with colleges, and then we got into discussion about the previous minister, who has now taken the chair. I guess you might say that what comes around goes around.
I wanted to make one comment to follow up on the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's discussion with the minister about teachers' certificates. I'm well aware of the fact that at the college level you don't need a teacher's certificate, although there is a financial reward if you do have one: you're placed higher on the salary scale when you start. At least, this is true at Langara, where I was an instructor. It always seemed a bit strange that at the post-secondary level you didn't need a teacher's certificate, yet at the K-to-12 level you do. This might
[ Page 15369 ]
lead into a question for the minister. Has there been any discussion in his ministry, or the Ministry of Education in conjunction with this, about combining the two? Quite frankly, I think it's long overdue that we seriously considered a Ministry of Education so that maybe we can get away from some of the gunfights and turf battles that seem to go on.
Hon. D. Miller: In fact, someone recently advised me that it's Liberal policy to run the two ministries together. Where I come from, if you have a policy, you should be proud of it and let the public know where you're coming from. That's an interesting question; we'll see. If the opposition stops playing peekaboo, one of these days they might actually tell people what they stand for.
J. Dalton: What about you?
Hon. D. Miller: We're here for all the world to see. We've combined the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Advanced Education into the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, and we have the programs laid out here. I think we're absolutely on the right track. I suspect the member thinks we are, too. He may wish to say that or he may not -- I don't know. I know he was engaged in another debate a short while ago complaining about the wages made by construction workers. I can assure him that I haven't complained about the wages made by college instructors -- or MLAs, for that matter -- which are considerably higher than the average construction worker's.
I'm always baffled by people who want to attack working people for the wages they make and somehow think that all the problems we face in our society would be resolved if we simply cut their wages. I don't hold to that view myself, but that's another interesting debate that perhaps we might be able to get into at some point in time. Nor do I subscribe to the federal Liberals' proposal which saw the delinking of funding for the LINC training at Vancouver Community College simply because the instructors there belonged to an association that actually -- wonder of wonders! -- negotiated a benefit package for themselves. They were suitably punished by the minister -- Sergio Marchi, I think his name was. I spent some of the British Columbia taxpayers' money and allowed that program to continue at Vancouver Community College. I was delighted to do that, because, of course, they pioneered that kind of training; I thought it was kind of dumb of the feds. If they have now seen the error of their ways, I am pleased about that. But we were talking about...?
J. Dalton: Combining the ministries.
Hon. D. Miller: No, we have no desire to combine the two ministries. If the opposition does, then they should stand up and say so.
The Chair: Before recognizing the member, I note the clock is advancing in the interests of all the committee members. Although I have only been in the chair for five minutes, I'll observe that neither the question, which appeared to pertain to the estimates of the Minister of Education, nor the answer had any obvious relevance to the vote that we're discussing.
J. Dalton: I can assure the committee that that question wasn't intended to be asked. It just came in at an opportune time, and I thought it should be raised. Certainly it's Liberal policy: we're going to look very closely at all ministries and at the mandate of all ministries. We have to, because we cannot limp along at the current rate, wasting so much public money, as we have been discussing....
Hon. D. Miller: In this ministry? Be specific, my friend.
J. Dalton: In many ministries. In fact, why not say all ministries? We might as well blanket them all.
However, let's come back to post-secondary, because that's the reason I'm here. I'm hoping the minister will avoid the temptation, as always, to blast our so-called federal or Ontario cousins. I don't know; he'll probably find someone else in our pedigree to find fault with.
Degree-granting status is a question that is very often put to me -- the status of colleges, such as the one from which I'm on leave. Langara, Capilano College, Douglas -- just to name three -- are all very anxious, as I'm sure the minister is aware, to have the question of degree-granting status not just talked about but advanced to the next stage. Can the minister advise the committee as to the current state of discussion on that topic?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm just trying to look for some answers on a piece of paper that came my way a short while ago. I haven't been able to find them because.... This paper talks about fundamentally redesigning and reshaping the system, because they're not going to provide the budget that the post-secondary system has come to depend on.
By the way, this is entitled "Directions for Post-Secondary Education" from the MLA for Richmond East. It's a White Paper on the policies of....
"We have showered our attention and resources on our educational institutes" -- they'd be surprised to learn that, I'm sure -- "on the grounds that we could not have an educated, well-trained population without sophisticated and expensive educational institutes." Nonetheless, hon. Chair.... What was the question again?
An Hon. Member: Degree-granting.
Hon. D. Miller: Degree-granting. We've made our announcements. We've extended degree-granting to Malaspina on the Island, Fraser Valley, Okanagan, Cariboo, Emily Carr and BCIT. The only criticism I ever heard of that program -- and I don't know if the member is in favour of it or not -- was from an association of English professors, I think they were, from across Canada. Having been exposed in a limited way to some of the sayings about post-secondary education, I'm aware that there are those who argue that it's important that people go to universities because there you learn critical thinking.
I was somewhat bemused by the contention of the English professors that the quality of degrees at the community colleges could not be as high as they are at universities. My only conclusion was that maybe they skipped a few classes in critical thinking.
J. Dalton: I almost hate to get on my feet and congratulate the minister, but he and I are on exactly the same wavelength in that last comment he made. I think back to my days
[ Page 15370 ]
at Langara, when Malcolm McGregor retired from UBC. He was probably the most outstanding professor I've ever had at university level. I think many thousands of others would endorse that.
He just loved it at Langara -- once he was bounced out of UBC because they had compulsory retirement. He couldn't be there, and he wanted to keep teaching and allow people to benefit from his wisdom. He spent the last few years of his life, literally, at Langara. He wore his robes and swept through the hallways, and students looked at him in amazement, because they'd never had that experience in their lives. Malcolm McGregor had no pretences that the college was far better at delivering the product. It was closer to the student, it was more cost-effective and it was more accessible.
[8:45]
Accessibility is the reason that I put the question to the minister about degree-granting. I think we would all agree -- at least, hopefully -- that more access can be provided. We have excellent colleges in this province -- outstanding colleges, with outstanding instructors. I think we should take every advantage of that. I'm hoping we'll be able to advance that issue further.
The other point I want to ask about is what I'll describe as corporate sponsorship, for want of a better term. This topic was touched upon before supper tonight and certainly is a topic that comes up in education discussions at all levels, from K right through to 12.
I'm not thinking, when I talk about corporate sponsors, of the great western forum or General Motors Place or the logo on the Vancouver Library card. I'm thinking of the excellent programs that are offered -- again, I must use Langara as the example I know best. Each of the business programs, of which there are nine, offers a cooperative component.
I can tell you, the number one selling point -- and I was at a faculty meeting on Friday that reinforced this -- for the students coming to Langara is the fact that there's co-op. I consider that a form of sponsorship. Corporate sponsors come on board, they take the students under their wing and many of those students find employment with the corporate sponsor after or even during their co-op term. Many of them don't graduate because, of course, they're gobbled up by the employer. Does the ministry have any particular policy on this topic in a general sense, not just co-op but involvement of corporations and the investment of corporations? Does the ministry have any concerns?
Some people have raised concerns that maybe we're going to sell out to IBM or whatever. Again, as an example for the minister, Kodak sponsored the photography lab at Langara. They set it up, and the students profited immensely from that and they still do today. Nobody complained about that then. So I'm hoping we will be a little more forward-thinking and not get hung up on a corporation perhaps sponsoring for the wrong reasons. So I'd be interested in the minister's views on that.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I have absolutely no fear at all about the notion that somehow the corporations will sort of hijack the agenda of the post-secondary system. In fact, the opportunity more and more is for partnership.
By the way, we do support co-op education very strongly. I agree with the member, I think it's an outstanding way for individuals to be supported in the system. I do believe that the benefit the employer receives is someone who not only gets training at the institution -- academic or whatever kind -- but gets that on-the-job training which makes for a very good employee. We contribute about $3 million to support cooperative education.
There are many, many examples of partnerships. Even the early development of Skills Now was done under that kind of arrangement, that broad-based partnership of business and labour and others. We've now launched another initiative here at Royal Roads where we've said partnership is absolutely essential. We've worked with the institutes at the technical level. Outfits like Honda and others use BCIT -- there's a partnership there that pays off for students. Mercury Marine is another one. They've got a partnership up at Malaspina, I think, and they're looking at one at BCIT. There are all kinds of examples of partnerships between public educational institutes and private companies that work for the benefit of everyone involved: the institute, the company and obviously the people we're most concerned about, the students themselves.
We also think that the institutes need to be more responsive to the demands of the economy. I visited a plant not long ago -- in fact, the week before last -- in Richmond that manufactures components for the aircraft industry. They told me there's some frustration. They had contacted various educational institutes -- UBC, BCIT and a couple of others -- looking in vain for some course material they want their employees to be able to take, and they could not find the kind of specifics they were looking for anywhere. I passed that observation on in a speech I gave to the Advanced Education Council of B.C. on the very day I was in the Richmond plant, a week ago last Monday. Several people from the institutes came up to me and said: "What was the name of that company again?" So I think they were going to go out there. I say to the private sector and the institutes themselves that they should get to know each other. The institutes should be out there. They should understand who the employers are in their particular operating area and what their needs are, and they should work together as much as possible.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
I don't think the fundamental notion of an education is simply to provide someone with the ability to work. I have never thought of that as the underlying premise of an education. It's broader-based than that, but at the same time you need to have the skills in order to find employment if only just to sustain yourself while you might do other things. So we're performing that partnership in a significant way.
J. Dalton: Certainly on this side we wouldn't disagree with the comments the minister has made. I think there is obviously still room for, shall we say, the academic university. It serves a very useful function. I had the good fortune to attend convocation last Friday at Simon Fraser and at UBC the week before. It's very interesting to see the students march across the stage, and every now and then you spot a family member or even a friend. You get a chance to dash off another letter of congratulations to someone who might even happen to be a voter, you never know.
That's the mandate of the university in the so-called traditional sense, but more and more, of course, we have to
[ Page 15371 ]
expand our horizons to increase the mandate of the colleges, the BCITs of the province. I think of the career centre that just opened recently in Abbotsford, an excellent partnership, as the minister knows, between the senior secondary grades and post-secondary.
That's the kind of innovation that we have to both recognize and encourage, and I think clearly there is a role, as the minister said, for corporations to be involved. Some might think that we have to be beholden to them. Maybe they will get a tax break or two, but then we donate to political parties. We get a tax break. Why shouldn't corporations gain the same benefit as long as the money they are putting forward has no strings attached?
The other point I want to ask about may have been asked earlier, but the minister did refer to Skills Now in his answer. I'm just looking at the release from his ministry of May 19, whereby a new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour office was opened in Langley. I'm interested to hear from the minister what the cost of actually setting up that office is. The same release states that it is one of 61 new Skills ministry offices. Can the minister advise us of the total cost of operating these centres? I recognize the partnership aspect. That's stated, as well, in the release, but I think the taxpayer would be interested to know: what is the upfront cost to get these things rolling and then, hopefully, the benefits that come?
Hon. D. Miller: Just a couple of responses. I can honestly say that I've never gone to a convocation or graduation so that I could see someone I might write a letter to in order to solicit votes. Hon. Chair, I can tell you I don't intend to start to or to ever do that.
J. Dalton: He probably doesn't know anyone who's gone to university.
Hon. D. Miller: That may be true; it may not be true. It misses the point that I don't attend convocations in order to solicit votes.
Number two is with respect to tax breaks. I don't have a broad-based experience in the federal tax system, but to the best of my understanding, any money expended by a company that is a legitimate business expense -- and certainly spent on training is considered a business expense -- they can write off 100 percent. That's not bad; I don't know how you could improve on that. You could make it 150 percent, but that would hardly seem fair.
An Hon. Member: Not good enough.
Hon. D. Miller: Not good enough? Okay.
Was the member seeking the cost of transferring staff?
J. Dalton: Opening new offices.
Hon. D. Miller: Opening new offices. We don't have it here. We'll get it to you.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to join the debate. I have a number of questions around colleges and universities. I'm certainly willing to put them on the record this evening, and I trust we will be able to respond to them. If not, as long as the minister is prepared to commit to provide the information, I'm prepared to move through this debate as efficiently as possible.
In terms of the college and university system in British Columbia, there seems to be information missing from the documentation I received in terms of the number of applicants and the number of turnaways. It certainly was my understanding that that information would be available in April of this year and that it is available in April of every calendar year. How many students made application to the system, including all colleges and universities, and how many students were actually turned away? Perhaps the minister could respond.
Hon. D. Miller: I talked earlier about conventional wisdom using the 20,000 as the number of turnaways. I put out a press release just before Christmas last year that indicated that in our view we had -- without accepting 20,000 as being the number -- reduced the turnaway list by about 60 percent. That was based on the absolute best information we could get by canvassing the institutions. In other words, knowing that the system we have isn't absolutely perfect in terms of trying to come up with those statistics, that was the best we estimated. I wasn't looking to try and pad it up. I said: "I want a dead honest number; the best you can get."
Just to expand the point, in 1994-95, new students in the system came from several groups and went into full-time and part-time courses. Approximately 5,000 went directly from high school into colleges and institutes, and 5,000 are entering university full-time. From previous high school graduating classes, new Canadians and individuals from other provinces, we had approximately 7,000 full-time new entrants. There were also 38,000 part-time students coming into the post-secondary system, and you can appreciate that that can be broadened up right across. In terms of the FTE count for 1994-95, there were 128,902 FTEs -- that's fairly remarkable actually, when you think about it -- which we estimate in terms of real people at about 180,000 people. That's a significant number of British Columbians who are taking either full-time or part-time courses at colleges, universities and institutes.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for that clarification. I appreciate how that 20,000 number was arrived at. From my understanding of what the minister has said, it's basically an opportunity to canvass each of the institutions and to see how many students came to the door and were not able to have their course requirements met. The other side of that discussion seems to be the number of students who have appeared in constituency offices across this province and suggested they were not able to be accepted into the system. The institutes have come back to me and have predicted a number, based not on those who actually appeared and tried to register, but on those who were somehow put off and didn't come through the doors. Is the ministry looking at that number being included within the 20,000?
Hon. D. Miller: No. We also believe, according to the release that I talked about a moment ago, that we have dramatically reduced that so-called 20,000. I couldn't give you a completely accurate number, but based on the growth in the system that we have promoted through Skills Now -- in other words, some 9,000 new full-time spaces -- we're confident that we have had a fairly dramatic impact on the so-called turnaways.
[9:00]
Some of the anecdotal evidence is.... I can't recall. I think last year was the first year that there were no stories
[ Page 15372 ]
about students being turned away. Normally it's a set piece: the editor's desk always assigns a reporter to go out to this college or that university and film unhappy students who have been turned away because they haven't been able to get their courses. For the first time last year, that didn't happen. That's anecdotal, but nonetheless it's some indication that our efforts under Skills Now are paying off.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. In terms of another measure of student success in the system, there used to be documentation available on the number of students who dropped out of the system. I wonder if that information is available today about colleges and institutes and the university programs. Is there any level of sophistication around a tracking system that may see some students leave for one term but then return to the system? Is there any ability to track students who may have taken some time out but have returned to the system to complete their program?
Hon. D. Miller: We have some data along those lines, and I've asked my staff to make sure that they pass that on to you.
The other point I should have mentioned in my last answer is that grade point averages have declined. You may have noticed the story about the University of Victoria. I think it has now come down to about a C-plus average. They are fairly aggressively recruiting in Alberta -- again, albeit anecdotal, another indication that the growth we have created in the system has made it possible for far more people to attend post-secondary than was previously the case before we brought in the Skills Now approach.
L. Reid: The minister's comment raises an interesting theme in this debate. If we look across Canada, in some of the other provinces they will tell us that their applications are actually down for post-secondary. British Columbia doesn't appear to be that way. Undergraduate enrolments for UBC in 1993-94 were 22,144; for this year, they were 22,786. That is just one example. They are not up significantly, but we don't seem to be following the trend that's happening in other provinces. Let's take Alberta as an example. They will suggest that their post-secondary enrolment is down. Perhaps they're just looking at colleges and institutes, whereas we're looking at a more expanded set of documents.
Hon. D. Miller: Just a caution about the experience of other provinces. It's an issue that's important in many contexts, not just post-secondary education. We face a dramatic increase in our population on an annual basis. I think it's projected to be somewhat lower this year, but typically that increase has ranged from 60,000 to 100,000 people coming in from outside our borders, whether from other parts of Canada or offshore. The impact that has on our system, particularly when you look at some parts of the post-secondary system, such as ESL or English-language training, is tremendous. So all provinces will not necessarily be equal in terms of pressure on the system. When you see a lowering of the GPA for the second year in a row under Skills Now.... It's something we're going to keep our eye on. We'll see what the real demand is when we start to get those kinds of enrolment numbers from institutions.
L. Reid: When the minister makes mention of grade point averages being reduced, let's take UVic as an example. Is there some discussion with the ministry in terms of supply and demand? I think what parents and students in the system are looking for is some kind of consistency across the board. Would the scenario ever arise where the grade point average at UVic is substantially lower than other universities in the province?
Hon. D. Miller: All institutions aren't the same; it depends on their specialties. UVic traditionally has been the place where students from outside the lower mainland come. Under the leadership of Howard Petch, they made a conscious effort to recruit outside students. I forget the actual difference in the makeup of local versus the rest of B.C. The institutions are different in terms of their course offerings. We really want to track that. I can't cite the numbers, but I think that across all of them there's been somewhat of a softening. On the other hand, Simon Fraser did exceptionally well last year. You know, under our funding formula, we didn't give them an automatic full increase. We funded inflation, and then we held back some and said: "Look, you can apply to this fund if you can demonstrate that through a onetime application of money, you can change your delivery to expand the number of students." Simon Fraser did exceptionally well. In fact, they exceeded our target by about 500 full-time-equivalents -- a very, very good performance.
Again, we're going to have to look at each institution. We've got the University of Northern B.C., which had its first full year and actually attracted a reasonable number of students. There is room for growth at the University of Northern B.C., and we'll see what kind of retention rate they've got with their first-year students -- you know, who comes back. I'm optimistic there. I think it's a very wonderful campus, and I've not heard any negative stories at all about their delivery.
So we'll have to look at all the institution and the colleges as well. There's no question that we want to try to have a pretty good handle on that demand side.
L. Reid: The minister talked about asking Simon Fraser, as an example, to do more with less. I've been in the audience numerous times when this minister made that same assertion. My specific question relates to institutions that were newly granted degree-granting status this year. Did they receive any startup funds, or were they also asked to expand their operations to expand their new responsibilities?
Hon. D. Miller: We applied the same approach to all post-secondary institutions, whether they were colleges or universities or institutes -- in other words, do more with less. Essentially, what we did was create a bit of a shadow budget out of that 1 percent that we held back and told each institution that they were eligible to apply for that money, one time only, to make the kinds of changes that would increase access. We probably have some numbers here. We could supply some numbers in terms of what their enrolment was. I don't think I've got it here, unless one of my staff members can find it. In other words, the enrolment in the previous fiscal year, the enrolment improvement under Skills Now, just to illustrate.... Maybe we've got it here. If I can just have a moment....
[ Page 15373 ]
Just to illustrate the point, I'm going to read a list of two columns, and I won't read all of these, but we'll make them available. The first column that I'll be reading is the '93-94 growth -- in other words, what was typical under our approach then. And the second column is the '94-95 growth, the kind of experience under Skills Now.
Starting with BCIT: in '93-94, 84 FTEs; '94-95, 333 FTEs. You can see that it's dramatically larger under Skills Now. Camosun: in '93-94, 49.5; under Skills Now, 162. Capilano: 31 in '93-94; under Skills Now, 144. And on and on it goes, with some fairly.... I mean, look at this. Douglas: '93-94, growth of 30 FTEs; '94-95, 298 FTEs. I was going to cite some numbers for Langara, but they're not really applicable because of the split between the VCC and Langara. Nonetheless, it's worthy of note that in the new VCC we had a growth of 90 FTEs under Skills Now and in Langara a growth of 122 FTEs under Skills Now.
So in the main there have been some very good responses by the institutions to the funding approach that we've promoted, which is: "You can't have all the money. How are you going to spend smarter? How are you going to deliver more training to more students?" And I think the institutions are worthy of a lot of praise, and I don't hesitate to do that. I think that's also important to do when they do perform very well.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. I was looking specifically for funding increases around institutions that have recently been given degree-granting status. If the minister is suggesting that all of the institutions are being treated the same, I have no issue with that. I simply would like that confirmed.
Hon. D. Miller: I think there was some money for Emily Carr and BCIT with respect to library improvement.
L. Reid: And the Kwantlen system?
Hon. D. Miller: No. We just announced Kwantlen a short while ago. As far as the rest go, they were, in a way, delivering some of that degree-granting in partnership. They weren't autonomous. In fact, the individual who graduated received the degree of Simon Fraser or UVic or whatever it was. The colleges in the main will not find it a difficult transition to autonomous degree-granting status, but the two institutes required some upgrade on their libraries.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. I was going to take issue with his assertion that somehow this was about increasing access. In terms of new degree-granting institutions, I'm not comfortable with that notion. I think it is about redefining their role and increasing their responsibility, but I believe they're taking the same student all the way through to the end, as opposed to bringing in a new student. I think the minister and I probably agree on that; I will assume that we do.
In terms of new institutions that are in the works, I want to spend a couple of minutes on Royal Roads because it seems to me that it will be a degree-granting institution. According to the document:
"Under the Canada-B.C. framework agreement on Royal Roads, the federal government is providing the province with up to $20 million for costs relating to the development and operation of the campus over the next five years. This funding will ensure that there is no cost to British Columbia taxpayers in 95-96."
I am simply asking what the cost will be in '96-97.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the rules, there are some unknowns there. We have a board that we need to fully flesh out. We need to hire a permanent president-CEO. First of all, the report done by Dr. Saddlemyer, Dr. Scott Wallace, Catherine Vertesi and Bob Stewart.... I wanted a vision for an institution that did not require ongoing provincial funding. I'm not certain that message was heard clearly by some people in B.C., but nonetheless that was the criterion we laid down. We're aware that that's a pretty difficult target to achieve. At any rate, that guided the development of the criteria -- the vision for the institute. That is still one of the issues that the board will have to deal with. We're optimistic that there will be opportunities, going back to some of our discussions earlier about the private sector, for sufficient support from the private sector to ensure that that is not the case.
[9:15]
Without getting into numbers, we have allocated the bulk of the first year's money -- in other words, the $5 million that was available under the agreement with the federal government. There are some issues that the board needs to deal with, but there will be no cost to the B.C. taxpayer in year one. There will be a lesser amount available in each succeeding year for four years. The challenge of the board will really be to come back to government with a plan that completely minimizes the provincial government's financial responsibility to maintain the operation. It's a bit in the future. I really can't get into too much more detail about it.
The Chair: As we all recall, there was also a bill introduced last Thursday, which we'll have an opportunity to talk about when it gets to committee stage.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about predicting funding around Royal Roads in the future. Specifically, if we're talking a $20 million budget over five years, is it the intention of this government to suggest that that will cover 100 percent or 80 percent of the funding and then look to the private sector? I don't mind which it is. I'm simply interested to know what outlay of cash will be the expectation from those who will be hopefully coming forward to fund this institution.
The second part of the question simply looks at the number of FTEs. Somewhere in this document I was hoping to find the number of FTEs, but it doesn't seem to be available. Is there some expectation of what that $20 million will match in terms of students numbers?
G. Wouters: On your first question, the $20 million from the federal government, as the minister indicated previously, is $5 million this year, the remainder to be balanced out over the next four years. We have asked the new board to come back with a business plan. We challenged the board and the business plan to take a look at the question of veritable tuition rates. We've asked them to look at various revenue generations, at endowment funds and at partnerships with the private sector on retraining, etc.
[ Page 15374 ]
In that context, we've asked them to come with a business plan by the end of December, and from there we will then advise the minister on the viability of the operation of Royal Roads, or we may have to go back to the province to request funding. So we'll know at that time.
L. Reid: I have a number of questions on the Open Learning Agency, but perhaps I could just frame the debate and be provided with the information. One of the most interesting press releases out of the Open Learning Agency is the international credential evaluation service. This minister and this ministry have heard the Liberal caucus talk about credit-banking and allowing students to bring together all their expertise and experience and hopefully a number of different courses from a number of different programs, and actually build something with that.
That's certainly something we support, and the minister will know that I'm speaking very strongly of a seamless post-secondary system and the ability to bring together in one place all your experience, programs and, hopefully, credits.
In terms of this new service, I note that it's funded by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labor and the Open Learning Agency, and I think that is a very useful partnership. If there are ways to expand this system.... I'll reference the points made earlier about individuals working in the trades. If it is appropriate and this system works and can be expanded to look at individuals who have maybe 15 years of a trade skill in some type of applied setting, whether or not they can come in and formalize that, either through an examination or a demonstration of their skills set, into some kind of certificate.... I think that would be something we could expect from the Open Learning Agency. I think there has to be opportunities for students in this system, workers in the system, people who've worked for 20 or 25 years and don't have any formal documentation.
Would it ever be the minister's intention to see this service expanded to allow individuals to bring a variety of credits together and bank them into one system?
Hon. D. Miller: One of the issues we've looked at under Skills Now -- in fact, it falls under the innovative side -- is prior learning assessment -- in other words, where people don't have degrees or diplomas or certificates, but nonetheless have a wealth of experience, trying to quantify that. So we'll continue that, and I was pleased that we were able to move on the issue of immigrants coming to Canada with particular skills that we could define.
At the same time, I want to go back and remind members of what I said about the apprenticeships or the trades. I think it's folly to always import our skilled requirements. I really think if we don't have a system that gives those opportunities to young British Columbians, then we're letting them down. I would say, not to the exclusion of those who come to British Columbia, either from other parts of Canada or.... In fact, if they come from other parts of Canada, at least on the trade side, we've got the Red Seal program, which is mutually recognized credentials. It's not really a problem.
At the same time, it's important to recognize that people who do come to this country offer a great deal of experience, and a system that allows them to use that experience is one that benefits all of us.
L. Reid: On this point, I believe the minister and I agree. I'm strongly attempting to make the case that this should be open to British Columbia residents who are trained in B.C. and have a range of skills that they acquired in this province. Not to take anything away from the international aspects of this, but I too would like to see tradespeople with 15 to 20 years' experience in fragmented courses in a number of different areas have a formal assessment. They certainly talk about a general assessment, listing an individual's educational achievements and describing the comparative levels in British Columbia. I don't think that's a service that should be available just to non-residents. I think that's a superb service that we should have in place so that individuals can get onto the first rung of the ladder and hopefully work themselves up through the system.
The second part is apparently going to be available -- a detailed assessment which adds further information on each course completed by the individual. That would be just as relevant for British Columbia residents who may have acquired a training program or apprenticeship program 15 or 20 years ago and are interested in upgrading, retraining and coming away with some formal piece of paper.
So my point to the minister was to see if this can be expanded so that it looks at people who are resident in British Columbia and may have a variety of programs that they want to build something with, and not just see this exclusively for international students.
Hon. D. Miller: I've indicated that we are doing that across the system in the existing colleges and universities. Just to flesh that out a little bit, seven grants from the innovation fund that I referred to have been awarded to six institutions to support prior learning assessment activity. In total, innovation funding was almost $400,000, and the institutions were University College of the Fraser Valley, Malaspina, Douglas, BCIT, Capilano and Camosun, and we expect that work will be shared.
A joint project of Douglas College, Malaspina, the Open Learning Agency and University College of the Fraser Valley has produced two PLA -- prior learning assessment -- manuals, one per student for institutional use. So there really is a hope that the post-secondary system itself will see the expansion of this approach -- prior learning assessment -- and it would be available to all British Columbians, achieving what you're talking about.
The other situation we're talking about regards those who come to this country with credentials they received in their home countries, without a way of those credentials being recognized or turned into something useful here. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you can appreciate the approach we're taking with respect to the institutions in the province.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments; I believe he and I agree on that point. In terms of where we go with the public school system and where we go with the public post-secondary system, I hope the minister knows, at this point in the debate, that although I'm a strong supporter of those systems, I can see the value of some kind of reasonable private-government partnerships.
I would make the case this evening for the minister thinking along the lines of future post-secondary placements being wrapped together with something like Discovery Parks. Certainly the minister will be aware that Discovery Parks,
[ Page 15375 ]
which sits adjacent to BCIT, in terms of its basis in size, its commitment to research and development, its necessity for excellence in new biotechnologies and information technologies -- that kind of thinking for the future, coupled directly with BCIT or at least proximity to BCIT -- makes perfect sense for the student and makes wonderful sense for post-secondary placements and for new opportunities. I wonder if the minister has given any thought to such an enterprise: a discovery park situated in the Fraser Valley. I think it's incredibly important that we provide those opportunities, but they're only going to be useful opportunities, particularly with the very small number of FTEs that are currently contemplated, if there's a business side that allows them to be relevant for the employment market.
Not to take away from the comments the minister made earlier about the apprenticeship programs, but we could expand our base around cooperative programs to meet more students along the continuum. It seems to me that there's a mismatch today in terms of what's available and the experience that students are looking for. This would be one more opportunity to create what could be a fabulous learning opportunity for students in the Fraser Valley. Would the minister kindly comment?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not looking at that kind of notion, although we have expanded. If you look closely at what we're trying to do with Royal Roads -- the partnership that I talked about -- while we've indicated that some undergraduate work would take place, we're interested in the postgraduate opportunities for those who may not necessarily have a degree of any kind, but who have a wealth of experience and some of the basic skills required to enter that type of program -- communication being one of them. Similarly, at the technical university we will be developing in the Fraser Valley, not only is there the partnership with existing institutions -- Kwantlen College, University College of the Fraser Valley, BCIT -- but the opportunity for partnership with the private sector is very, very real. But with respect to a specific discovery-park type of approach, we're not contemplating that.
L. Reid: I trust that the ministry and the minister will continue to have these types of discussions around innovation, because I do believe that the future success will be dependent on whether we can amalgamate the business side with the educational side and with the government side. I think it's very, very important.
Again, I would speak very strongly for placements with high-tech companies. The minister often talks about importing skilled labour to work in a variety of industries in British Columbia, but the only way we will stay competitive is if we have some high-tech placements. I believe that very, very strongly, and I believe the minister will see the wisdom of that as the next five to ten years unfold. I think it's part of the package, and we can't simply look at one part of the package and continue to fragment the system. I do believe it will be a seamless system and a publicly funded one. Certainly I welcome the commitment that your staff has shown in terms of their expertise, their humour and their commitment to their craft. I thank them for their good humour during this debate.
Hon. D. Miller: I just want to thank my hon. critic. If occasionally my good humour has not been up to everybody else's level, I hope there's an appreciation of that. We do approach these estimates with an attempt to respond. For many of the questions that were asked, detailed information is available. So we'll certainly, as I've indicated throughout the debates, make every effort to get that information to the members. I thank the members for the debate.
The Chair: Shall vote 49 pass?
K. Jones: I'd just like to ask a couple of questions with regard to the Cloverdale technical university. Could the minister tell us exactly how much money is in this year's budget for the planning of that university and for the capital?
Hon. D. Miller: Don't hold me to this number, hon. member, but I believe it's around $700,000. An interim council has been formed to begin the planning.
K. Jones: I put two questions; I was hoping to speed things up. How much capital budget is there in this fiscal year?
Hon. D. Miller: No capital at this point. Obviously the planning comes before the capital, so this year it's really planning.
K. Jones: If there's no capital this year, that means the projected start of construction in January 1996, as was announced in the special announcement of the university, is not to be met. It would delay it at least three months to have fiscal capital funding if you're going to wait until the next fiscal year.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I do not recall making any announcement that construction would start in January 1996. I think the record will prove that I'm correct. We are in the planning phase at this point. Members will appreciate that this is a significant capital expenditure, which we are committed to as a government, because we have the lowest per capita debt of any province in the country. We can afford these kinds of institutions. They're very important to the future of our province.
[9:30]
I think the members have all spoken to a need to develop people with the kinds of skills that match what's happening in the economy. The money this year is simply planning money. I did think, though, that we talked about a target of 1999 for the institution to be open and accessible to the public.
K. Jones: Definitely the target of 1999 for completion was mentioned, and I've heard it said on several occasions that start of construction -- in fact, the question was asked several times -- was January 1, 1996. The only problem is that unless there was money budgeted for capital funding in this budget year, there would be no possibility that that could be met. Now you've confirmed that. What date does the minister have for start of construction?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have a specific date, and the member might appreciate that it will be contingent on the work of the interim council. I am somewhat confused, because
[ Page 15376 ]
the member's party has clearly spoken out against these capital expenditures. I assume they're at some risk unless we return to ensure that the job is finished. That may be a debate for some other place.
We want to get on with the job. I appreciate that the member, when we made our announcement in Surrey.... Was it Surrey or Cloverdale?
An Hon. Member: You referred to them both.
Hon. D. Miller: In other words, we were in two places at one time -- amazing.
I do appreciate that the member strongly supports the institution and no doubt will make his views known to the interim council that is now in place, charged with the responsibility of carrying out this important planning work.
K. Jones: I really speak in support of my constituents in this regard. They want to know whether this is just an election ploy, whether there's really substantive commitment to a construction start date and whether there's money in this to meet that start date. My constituents are very concerned that this is nothing more than a political game.
Hon. D. Miller: We have on the other side of the House a Liberal caucus whose only response to this government's decision to expand debt and fund these kinds of projects has been to say: "We can't afford it. We shouldn't be spending this kind of money." We have the member for Surrey-Cloverdale standing up and talking about election ploys. It's just a bit too much to take.
Hon. member, the voters will decide whether they can believe that a government led by your party will make good on the commitments made by this government, but I can assure you that I don't stand up at press conferences and make announcements because of election ploys.
We are expanding this system right across the province because it's important. If you want to play games, go ahead and play games. But if the member wants me to come out to his riding and have a little debate with him on this subject, I'd be more than happy to, and I'll wait for your call.
The Chair: Hon. members, I'm now going to call vote 49.
Vote 49 approved.
Vote 50: ministry operations, $1,632,121,770 -- approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:36 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]