[ Page 5849 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call the continuation of committee stage on Bill 16.

The House in Committee on Bill 16; G. Brewin in the chair.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(continued)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move an amendment to section 46 that's in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 46(3), by deleting "section 41(3)" and substituting "Part 8".]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I have no questions.

Amendment approved.

On section 46 as amended.

G. Plant: Here we are dealing with the transitional provisions. These are important provisions in their impact on all police complaints that are in the old system, which is in place now and which is to be replaced by the provisions of the bill that is now before us.

I understand that one of the objectives of the new process is to expedite, shorten and make more efficient, as well as more fair and more transparent, the process of police complaints. That's a very good thing with respect to any complaints that are made after this act comes into force, but I think it's problematic for some complaints that are in the system now. The transitional process that is set out in section 46 is pretty long and goes on for several pages.

For my purposes, the point that gives rise to my concern is section 46(3) where we see that the guts of the transition, if you will, takes effect in this way: if there has been, in respect of an ongoing complaint, an inquiry requested, and if there has been a notice specifying the date and place for the inquiry, then if all of that is in place now or as of the day that this comes into force, then that complaint will be dealt with -- I think I'm right in saying this -- under the old procedure. If, however, the ongoing complaint had not reached that point of proceedings -- that is, if it had not reached the point where an inquiry had been requested and a notice of the date and place of the inquiry had been provided by the tribunal -- then, generally speaking, I think the new regime applies. I think that it is so that the parties to a complaints process, which would otherwise continue under the old regime, have the opportunity to opt into the new regime, and that's reasonable enough.

I am more concerned about the prejudice that may be worked on some proceedings that are underway but have not yet reached the stage which is the triggering event to be grandfathered, if you will, under these transitional provisions. I am sure that what I'm saying here is not news to the Attorney General, because I doubt very much that I would have heard this concern if it hadn't already been expressed more directly to the person who is much more likely to be able to do something about it.

But I think there is a potential for unfairness here, because we're not simply replacing one pure process with another pure process. There are aspects of the new and old processes which are, I think, quite distinct. There's a burden-of-proof issue -- civil versus something else. There are issues around compellability and so on, and then there are these issues of. . . . In the early stages of the old process, you had the form 2; you had the form 3; you probably had an officer who made some statements that were without prejudice, hopefully. And whether they will continue to be so if the rest of the thing happens under the new process is perhaps an open question. What we're talking about are situations where there may be procedural, jurisdictional arguments made. There may be arguments made by lawyers about whether or not someone's vested rights -- process rights -- are being interfered with. This could work not just apparent hardship but real hardship.

If I could complete the argument, as I understand it, we're not just talking about the fact that there is the prospect of some prejudice or hardship or change or something like that. There are apparently out there in the works some complaints that are quite serious, involving fairly serious allegations against police officers -- allegations that could well warrant dismissal. I think that police chiefs in some of these jurisdictions are concerned that if they get caught in some kind of jurisdictional trap or some argument about unfair process, they may lose the opportunity to ensure that particular officers who have done things that are wrong will have to pay the price.

So for all of those reasons, I think it's important that I bring to the attention of the Attorney General this issue -- the problem with these transition provisions -- and ask him why the grandfathering, if you will, can't be pushed back. I know that term is hopelessly politically incorrect now, but I'm sure the Attorney General understands what I mean when I use it. So there's the problem, and I leave it with the Attorney General to begin the discussion, if I may.

[6:45]

But at the same time I just want the hon. member to know that there is the other side of this argument, as well. There are complaints that may be as old as four or five years where there hasn't been an inquiry date set or notice given of an inquiry, and that is in no one's interest -- not the individual 

[ Page 5850 ]

police officer involved -- because there is this uncertainty that hangs over his or her head. So I take the hon. member's comments in the spirit he makes them: to make sure that we don't, in the process of bringing something new, do injustice to anyone that may have gone far in terms of being investigated under the old scheme. But I think the point of departure, the notice of inquiry date having been set, is the appropriate point of departure.

G. Plant: The minister began his defence of the approach taken here by talking about the kinds of things that are issues that arise for all public officials facing a period of transition from one set of rules to another. I understand the apprehension around all of that kind of thing. I think sometimes we can be fooled into regarding those concerns as being overly important, because all change causes some uncertainty and some apprehension. I'm prepared to acknowledge the existence of that, but that's not the reason for my concern here. So I would put those points to one side.

Then we get to the fact that there are cases in the system now that have been in that system too long -- four, five or maybe even six years. Of course, one of the reasons why the act is being changed is to fix those, not necessarily to fix cases that are currently in the system in a unilateral way, but rather to create a new process that will ensure that from this point forward, those delays don't occur.

In the context of the Human Rights Council, which the Attorney General knows well, we saw an experience where the time lines for processing complaints stretched out way too long. But that happened because of administrative issues and partly because of funding issues. That backlog is being dealt with in a way which, as I understand it, is more respectful of the process considerations that affect those claims than I think will be the case here.

It's not so much really the question of acknowledging that there will be discomfort. It's more a question of making absolutely sure that, by this change, we don't allow some people to escape the consequences of their wrongdoing. I acknowledge that every time there's change, there is discomfort and sometimes people get lost in the cracks in some ways. But this is too important an area, I think, for people to get lost in the cracks. I don't think it would be a very good start at all, through an intent to restore public confidence in this new process, if in its early stages it operates in a way that allows people who, on the face of things, may have done some awfully bad things to essentially use the change in the rules as an opportunity to escape the consequences of their actions.

So I make the point again that we're not talking about here the discomfort or the uncertainty or the concerns that arise whenever there's change, and we're not talking about how we can redesign the system so that it works more fairly and more efficiently for all the people who enter it after the act comes into force. We're talking about those people who are caught in between those two stages and who may have not just simply an argument that will allow them to avoid the consequences of their actions but who may have an awfully good argument.

So again, I want to ask the Attorney General to consider this issue. There may be another way of looking at it. If there are cases out there which are fairly concrete instances where there's been a form 3 served and the penalty which is being sought is dismissal, then perhaps it would be more appropriate for at least those cases to be dealt with under the old legislation, even if the inquiry has not yet been requested or set down. That's another alternative which I ask the Attorney General to consider.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm quite confident that the system being enshrined in legislation in fact protects the respondent's rights more than ever before, because at the end of the day there is a right of hearing by a Provincial Court judge in an open court. If the member isn't satisfied with what happens. . . . I understand the hon. member's legitimate concerns. The hon. member is making an argument on the other side saying that one doesn't want to see a member or members of any force that may have made some mistakes go undisciplined or without any consequences. That may be a possibility in a case. But I think at the end of the day, the process is fairly clear and open, and I'm not so certain whether the process in the past has been as fair or as just.

I have just been given statistics which indicate that over the last 20 years, out of 2,000 inquiries by police boards, only four inquiries have made any changes to the recommendations of chiefs of police. That is not to say that others should have made them. But if out of 2,000 cases over 20 years, there are only four inquiries that make any changes to the recommendations of the chiefs of police on a particular matter, then there is a very serious problem. If the inquiry has not been set, if the notice has not been given, I think it's important that we put that into this new stream and deal with those cases.

Section 46 as amended approved.

Sections 47 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 51, in the proposed section 3(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by deleting "for an officer of the Legislature, other than a financial, personnel or other record relating to the administration, operation or management support of the office of that officer of the Legislature;" and substituting "for, or is in the custody or control of, an officer of the Legislature and that relates to the exercise of that officer's functions under an Act;".]

G. Plant: Perhaps the Attorney General could explain the reason for this amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are simply making this provision consistent with Bill 23 that we just passed a few days ago in this Legislature -- the children's commissioner legislation. This FOI issue is being made consistent with that.

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 76 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 5851 ]

[7:00]

Bill 16, Police Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Police Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 13.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 1 that's on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed section 1.]

G. Plant: I thought that we were going to get rid of sections 1 and 2 of the act, and it seems to me that. . . . I don't know why I feel this inclination to allow it to happen in the proper way; I can't imagine that the favour would ever be returned. But it seems to me that the way to do that is in fact to allow the motion to pass, because. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the explanation that may make sense is that it is out of order to move deletion of a section. So the procedure is to vote against the particular section. Is that clear to everyone? All right, then.

Section 1 negatived.

On section 2.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 2.]

The Chair: The amendment has the effect of making the change that is required -- that is, to delete it.

Section 2 negatived.

The Chair: Sections 1 and 2 have now disappeared.

On section 3.

G. Plant: I had a question, but in fact it will arise in respect of the next section.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: Section 4 achieves the substantive goal of curing the problem that arose when the first commission was not appointed during the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament and now requires this commission to be appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I guess my question is to ask the Attorney General if he intends to do all that he can to in fact ensure that we will have a commission appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament, so that we can move forward to an examination of electoral boundaries and all of the things that flow from that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I will do whatever it takes to make sure that this is done, but the hon. member needs to understand the process.

The process is that the Speaker appoints a person pursuant to consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. There is also a judge appointed, and then there's also. . . . Anyway, the process is outlined in the act. The Attorney General doesn't directly have anything to do with that process, except as a member of cabinet passing an order-in-council for the appointment. I can assure the hon. member that all of us are eager to make sure that this is done, that we do not let this deadline expire without the appointment of a commission.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move committee stage of Bill 34.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

R. Coleman: I'd like to move the amendment to section 1 that stands in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 5852 ]

The Chair: Hon. member, I appreciate the amendment, but it is, regrettably, out of order, because it imposes an obligation on the Crown. As such, it should be initiated by a minister. So the amendment is now ruled out of order.

G. Plant: I'm curious to know, if I'm allowed to ask, how it is that raising the minimum fine imposes a financial burden on the Crown. The fine in question is in fact a fine that would be levied against people who commit the offence, which is the subject matter of the provision of the act. I'm just not sure how it is that. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I know you're aware that rulings from Chairs are not to be debated, but I'm happy to enlarge upon the explanation, and that is that a measure creating or increasing a tax or fine must be brought in by the minister.

Interjection.

The Chair: The ruling of the Chair is the ruling of the Chair. At this point, we're discussing section 1 of the act.

R. Coleman: I'd just like to address this section, then, seeing as the amendment has failed, with regards to some comments and some questions to the minister.

In my comments on second reading debate, I outlined some concerns relative to penalties to a variety of participants with regards to high-speed chases. This is where this bill under this section misses its mark; it misses its point. A fine by itself isn't going to be the deterrent that's necessary, particularly when most of the people. . . . I just did research, since the time I spoke in second reading debate, about the fact that most of the chases that we're dealing with are dealing with people who are underage. This is where the preponderance of the offences are taking place, and the penalty section doesn't really seem to deal with that.

My first question to the minister is with regards to juvenile offenders who are involved in high-speed chases. Has any consideration been given -- either within this section or within the regulations to this act -- to sanctions, penalties, a strong message to young people, some sort of an educational program that police can take into the schools and say, "Look, if you do this, this is going to be the result of your actions," other than just a monetary fine? Are they going to be able to give them the tools to start to deter these things and not just have some fine in place with regards to the offences?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a program underway in conjunction with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to educate the public, including the youth in particular. More importantly as a deterrent, first let me say with respect to this raising of the minimum fine, the maximum fine would be as is in the Offence Act, which I believe is now $2,000, if my memory serves me correctly. The court has the discretion to impose a fine higher than $500. If the court determines that the individual is guilty of the offence, $500 is simply the minimum fine. There is some comfort for those who want to see a higher deterrent that courts have that particular discretion.

[7:15]

I am cognizant of the concerns that the hon. member expressed. I said so during second reading debate. I take his comments very seriously, and I take the attempt that he has made to have this section changed as an indication of his commitment and concern in this area, which I share.

R. Coleman: Thanks to the minister for giving me some time lines that you're prepared to work with -- you know, a month, month and a half or whatever the case may be -- in this regard. It's very important that the message be sent, and the message has to be sent strongly that the deterrent must be in the system. Hopefully we won't be chasing joyriders once we put into place the regulations that are going to outline the criteria for a high-speed chase. I don't think that we'll be entering into high-speed chases with joyriders, if that implementation takes place. Obviously some of the guidelines that I would assume we're putting in place are going to restrict us from entering into chases just for the sake of entering into chases, and a joyride would more than likely be along those lines.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take the hon. member's comments in the spirit they are made. I want to clarify one thing. I didn't mean that we would have our answer to the joyrider issue, in terms of penalties or the taking away of the licence or the right to have a licence, within a month and a half. I was talking about the auto theft squad, but others are under discussion, as well. Obviously we won't be able to do that in this sitting, if legislation is required. They would be for the next sitting.

R. Coleman: That's what I understood, but if I could add one thing. . . . As you go through that process, this is no time to be nice. This is people putting lives of other people at risk, and it's time for strict penalties with regards to people who want to commit those offences, and I'd like to see that strength.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: I'm not sure if this was already answered, because I didn't hear what the minister said when he was talking about a month and a half as a time line. What is the status of the consultation process that is likely to lead to the new guidelines? How long will that process take? Could the minister explain what is involved in that process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I have indicated in the past, there is a Crown-police liaison committee, which is called a steering committee, that's working on the drafting of the guidelines. The work is already underway. They have set up a working group to actually draft the guidelines. It is now drafting the guidelines, and I understand that those guidelines are to be reported to the whole committee in September. I'm hoping that within the next few months we would have those guidelines in place. The work has been underway. It is a very comprehensive undertaking, as the hon. members realize.

There has to be that balance which allows discretion by the police to deal with issues of public safety and to not have 

[ Page 5853 ]

to abandon police chases that they deem necessary in the interests of public safety; while on the other hand, they need to look at the interests of public safety in terms of injuries that might ensue. They have to balance those issues. I'm very cognizant of the fact that we do not want to tie the hands of the police force so that they can't do the job that has to be done; while at the same time, we want to make sure that we don't have unnecessary injuries. That diminishes the confidence of the public in the police, which we need to maintain.

G. Plant: Am I correct in my understanding that the Attorney General is of the view that the guidelines, which will become regulations under this section, will apply to all police forces within British Columbia -- that is, all those encompassed by the Police Act, as well as the RCMP?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 34, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 15.

PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY
OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

S. Hawkins: As we discussed briefly yesterday when we were making statements on second reading, I think it is good, from some of the consultations that we've done, that the PharmaNet system be used to provide information to health care professionals and other health facilities for the purpose of allowing information to be shared, and to provide patients information in a way that will benefit them. One concern we do have is for confidentiality, and I think that is a very, very serious concern. I'd like to ask the minister what assurances she can give that this information will be used for the purposes of patient safety only.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an excellent point. I absolutely agree that confidentiality is key here, that the system will only work when the confidential records of the patient are protected. We have a committee that has been struck to determine all of the confidentiality rules. The privacy and FOI commissioner's office is part of that committee, and we are doing everything to protect privacy.

I might just add that the record of privacy protection in association with the pharmacists has been exemplary, and it is upon that that we will build.

[7:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, we're on section 1, so we are not into the issues about the council or the committee. I'm sorry, hon. minister. You may know more about that section than I do.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think this is the section that talks about privacy and disclosure, etc., so I think the questions -- if it's okay with you, Chair -- are appropriate.

The committee will consist of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., the College of Pharmacists, the ministry staff, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and the emergency room staff -- including physicians.

S. Hawkins: The reason I asked that is that in 1(3), it does talk about a council establishing a committee consisting of not more than ten persons. I wonder why that number was chosen, why ten. . . .

The Chair: That's section 3. We're doing this section by section. So we'll do section 1, and then we'll pass it and move on.

S. Hawkins: Sorry. You're absolutely right. I'm reading it as a sub, but it's not; it's a different section. I'll let the hon. member for Matsqui take over for a bit now.

M. de Jong: I'll try to ask these questions under section 1, and if they have application, the minister will tell me if that's the case. It could be under 1(3) or 1(4).

I received on my desk today the auditor general's report dealing with the collection of personal information by the Ministry of Health, which I understand is a separate matter. But they raise a couple of issues that I'm going to try to query the minister on, insofar as the issues they raise might apply, not necessarily the findings.

They talk about the office of the information and privacy commissioner, who talks about the need, through these information systems, to have in place "an automated audit trail" -- and I'm quoting from the report on page 14 -- "that will ensure that the information persons entrust to such public bodies will be used for legitimate purposes. . . ." I think the minister has the gist. I understand that this is a separate issue, but the need for an equally applicable audit trail. . . . Does she recognize that need? Is it in place with respect to this system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is. Everybody who uses the system will leave what are called footprints that can be traced through audits. In fact, those footprints are in place with the pharmacists, and they will be expanded to include the other health care professionals who have access to the system.

M. de Jong: On page 21 of this auditor general's report, there is specific reference made, in a section called practical privacy in computerized systems. . . . It talks about the ability to track who is accessing computer records. It refers to an assessment that was done of the Kelowna General Hospital. I 

[ Page 5854 ]

have difficulty turning a computer on, let alone knowing how to track who was accessing or inputting information. Is that something that the minister is familiar with -- the model that apparently exists and receives good marks in this report? Is it something comparable to that which she is referring with respect to the accessing of pharmaceutical records?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, if I could answer the question in the context of what the system is, in terms of PharmaNet, in comparison to every other system that exists. . . . When we instituted PharmaNet over two years ago, we used the highest technology available for the protection of privacy. No system is infallible, but this system comes as close as is possible to protecting people's privacy through being able to audit abuse. It is a model that other jurisdictions are looking at. I really would recommend it as being one that not only achieves the purpose of monitoring but achieves the highest quality of protection of privacy. To this date, we have not, as I understand it, had a complaint.

M. de Jong: This particular report dealing with the Ministry of Health spends a considerable amount of time dealing with access to and availability of social insurance numbers. I don't know to what extent SIN numbers are relevant with respect to the Pharmacare system. Maybe I'll just ask that question: in addition to any other log-in procedure, do SIN numbers play a component?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The identification number in this system is the personal health number which is on your CareCard; SINs are not used.

M. de Jong: That was my recollection the last time I got any medication, but I recall that when there was a difficulty accessing my personal health care number, the fallback was my SIN number. Is that standard procedure within the PharmaNet process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will certainly take that on notice. It's my understanding that it is the personal health number, but I will endeavour to get that answer for the member.

M. de Jong: My last point, then. I think the minister's response to this issue depends on what she finds insofar as her investigation of this, but the auditor general does express some concern about the manner in which ministry personnel are taught to deal with social insurance numbers. If in fact, through the PharmaNet process, that is a piece of information that is used on a semi-regular basis, my submission to the minister is that perhaps some of the recommendations made in this report would be equally applicable to the PharmaNet system.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point well taken. I will make sure that the auditor general's report is made part of the committee on protecting privacy.

S. Hawkins: The minister also said, just a short while ago, that this was going to be implemented first in emergency departments. Is there a pilot project starting soon, and where? Which persons are going to get access to the system first?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When the legislation is passed, we'll actually be confirming where the pilot projects are. There's a great deal of interest. We'll probably start with about ten pilot projects. We're working with the various interested parties to determine where those pilot projects should be. The final decisions will be made after the legislation has passed.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd like to point out that the last question was indeed on section 4. Acts are done differently than estimates. I'd like to suggest that if we have finished with section 1, we pass the other sections and move to the section that is applicable for discussion.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try and stick to the sections.

This section reads: ". . .a committee consisting of not more than 10 persons appointed. . . ." I wonder: why ten? I know that the minister mentioned some of the players that are going to be on this committee. I guess I just want to know why the number ten was chosen.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The significance of the number is just that it's the right number to include all of the parties that need to have input. It's no more significant than that. It's those that have been expressing a great deal of interest in working on this project and that also represent the consumer's point of view.

S. Hawkins: Will there be persons from around the province appointed to this committee? Will it be a provincial committee?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me answer in two ways. One is that it is a committee that represents provincial interests. If the member is asking whether representation from outside the large urban areas is on the committee, the answer to that is yes, but it is through the appointment of the various colleges. I'll actually take a look at it to make sure there is good representation from outside the large urban areas.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Hawkins: I think this is the section where we're concerned about the medical information on the PharmaNet system actually being used by the people it's designed to be used by.

First of all, I am familiar with the computer system at Kelowna General Hospital, and I believe Dr. Duane Zilm, who is the information specialist who runs computer services for that region, was in the House one day. The audit that the member for Matsqui mentioned that was done at Kelowna General is an excellent model. I'm not sure that all the computer systems around the province will actually line up in sync and use the system that Kelowna General does, but certainly the way they've set it up does leave the footprint that the minister is talking about. They can check back to make sure that the people who have punched in are actually authorized to access those files. Hopefully, that's the way this will function.

[ Page 5855 ]

I will raise some concerns that were passed on to me to raise at this time. The one I mentioned yesterday was the situation where you get into a busy emergency room, somebody leaves their access code on a little piece of surgical tape on the computer screen, and it's there for everyone to read. So there could be a situation of unauthorized access, I guess, with someone punching in that code and getting into the system and not actually being the person that the code belongs to.

There was a suggestion that came from some pharmacy individuals that perhaps the system should actually go into the pharmacy system in the hospitals and be accessed by pharmacists, and the information could then be relayed to medical personnel in emergency. I don't know how that would work, because I don't think pharmacists work 24 hours like the emergency departments, so that makes it difficult, as well.

I understand in this section that cabinet will be establishing the requirements, restrictions and conditions. I'm wondering if there is already a template for them. Is there something in place already that's going to be added on to, or is this something new that's going to be designed for this system now moving into the pilot projects?

[7:45]

The other important matter here is the assurances from the colleges. There are oaths of confidentiality by which the professionals live and are, frankly, not only guided by but disciplined for as well. So there is a great deal of commitment from everybody that this system must work from a confidentiality point of view, or else the failure will be rained upon the heads of the professionals.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 15, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the remarks of the opposition on this, and I look forward to taking the concerns into account. At committee, we can certainly debate this at length. Is the opposition standing to address this bill, or. . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. I was making my closing remarks, so perhaps I'm a little bit early here. We had adjourned debate on this matter.

Deputy Speaker: Continuing debate on Bill 20, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I was waiting with bated breath for the minister's opening remarks which, of course, we heard yesterday. How can I forget them.

As I look back on those remarks, the question that came to my mind at that point was: why are we debating this bill now? Why has this legislation come before this House at this point in time? Why is it necessary? What ills or errors or problems is it designed to correct or prevent?

The minister, in her remarks -- and in the past, actually, before this bill was ever tabled -- has spoken on occasion about contracts that provide severance clauses and severance provisions that she has said, and members of her government have said, are unfair. Yet we have seen and we are confronted by a whole litany of examples of these severance pay-outs that seem to go on and on. So when I ask myself why we are debating this legislation now, the answer I am compelled to come up with is that the government at last can take it no longer. They have resisted the need for as long as they could, but the public's reaction to some of these pay-outs has become so overwhelming -- the public expression of disgust, of contempt for what they see as unfair severance pay-outs -- that it has at last registered at home with the government, and they are responding.

I think it does bear referring back and thinking back on what some of those pay-outs were. In her remarks the minister alluded to the fact that there have been what she termed unconscionable pay-outs that she says she disagrees with, but she glossed over the actual amounts and actual examples fairly quickly. I think it is worth reviewing in this debate with respect to this bill what some of those pay-outs were.

In November of last year, Ron Mulchey, the former CEO at St. Paul's Hospital, received half a million dollars. At the time, the minister was quoted as saying that she was upset by that pay-out. "That it was totally inappropriate," I think the were the words that she used -- she doesn't support settlements like that. Yet it was by no means the only one, and it was by no means the first time that she had made those remarks.

When she left in April 1996, Connie Munro, the WCB appeals commissioner, was given a severance pay-out of $313,000. At that time the Premier said that he thought the contract provisions were unacceptable. He said that the contract had had lots of public scrutiny and the government had 

[ Page 5856 ]

said consistently that it was not an acceptable contract. Except it went ahead. The severance provisions were enforced, and Ms. Munro received that $313,000. At that time, April 1996, the Premier emphasized this -- the take-charge kind of guy that he is -- "What we've been doing is ensuring that this kind of contract never happens again." Of course, as we now know, it happened again. It happened again a number of times.

You can go back even further. You can go back to April 1995, when six WCB officials received a severance pay-out of $1.5 million. The present Deputy Premier -- he wasn't Deputy Premier then -- was minister responsible at the time. His comment was: "The board is finally acting on my request to clean those things up." That was the assurance he gave to the people of British Columbia that this wouldn't happen again. That was April 1995, and of course, we've just seen what happened in April 1996 when Ms. Munro left with her $313,000 jingling in her pocket.

You can go to B.C. Hydro. Ray Hunt -- the president, the chief operating officer -- received $912,000 in his severance buyout, which doesn't compare with Mark Eliesen's severance pay-out. Now, you've got to be careful here, because what it was, in fact, was a guaranteed pension of $1.2 million. What's interesting is that the Premier's communications director of the day -- and this was in 1994, when he was the minister responsible -- made a point of saying that Mr. Eliesen's severance is zero, so there has been a definite change of policy. The assurance that the Premier -- the minister responsible in those days -- gave to British Columbians when Mr. Eliesen signed his contract was that severance would be zero. Well, in fact, we now know that what Mr. Eliesen received was a $1.2 million guaranteed pension.

William Dartnell, Ridge Meadows Hospital Association president and CEO, received two years' salary plus benefits -- $250,000. In September 1994 the NDP member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows described that as being a disgusting amount of money. "Disgusting," he said, and I think he assured his constituents -- assured British Columbians -- that that kind of severance buyout would never be permitted to happen again. How many times have we heard that: "disgusting, unacceptable, unconscionable"; "It will never happen again"; "We fixed it"? We've been hearing it for going on four years now, yet it continues.

Gordon Austin, Health Labour Relations Association -- $525,000. This was in May 1996. The Premier said that he opposed any severance pay-out to Austin. "That's my position," he said. "Absolutely no money will be paid by taxpayers." Over half a million dollars of taxpayers' money were part of that severance buyout.

When you ask yourself to what extent the government has truly been committed to correcting a problem that has apparently been of concern to them for over four years -- certainly it has been of concern to British Columbians -- you wonder what has taken so long. You wonder how many millions of dollars it takes to get this government's attention.

There is the example of Inge Schamborzki, CEO of the North Shore health board. She received, I am advised, a 12-month severance package for two years' worth of work at the North Shore health board. It's like a two-for-one deal.

You ask yourself why it has taken so long for this government to respond to a situation that, quite frankly, the average British Columbian finds disgusting, has difficulty reconciling with the circumstances of their own existence. They don't get 12 months' severance for two years' work -- nothing like it. They ask themselves: "Why are these public officials, who rely on public tax dollars, getting that kind of money?" In Ms. Schamborzki's case, that was May 1997. That was this year.

From the perspective of this opposition and the public, the money has continued to roll out of the end of the truck, with very little justification, with very little rhyme or reason. For the minister and members of her government to stand here today and say, "Look, we're responding," really represents something of an attempt to hide the fact that they've done nothing for at least four years while this has been a problem.

Worse than doing nothing, they themselves have entered into agreements, have themselves entered into contracts and countenanced the signing of contracts that provide these very lucrative -- extravagant, I should say -- severance buyouts, and it's offensive. It's offensive to members of the opposition, but more importantly, it's offensive to the British Columbians who are left footing the bills for these severance buyouts.

[8:00]

"During the six-year period surveyed, ministries and Crown corporations paid approximately $13.7 million to 87 senior executives as compensation in lieu of notice.

"Within ministries, the average severance package for 43 terminated senior executives was $133,250, representing an average of 15 months of equivalent gross salary. Within Crown corporations" -- this is interesting -- "the average severance package for 44 terminated senior executives was $180,258, an average of 16.3 months of equivalent gross salary and benefits."

Certainly, in the case of some of the officials I've mentioned -- Ms. Munro, Mr. Eliesen -- you have to ask yourself. . . . Maybe the government was not as offended as the minister now purports to be by the amounts of money that were paid to these individuals. Does it have something to do with these individuals' political pedigree? It's not an unfair question for British Columbians to ask, when it appears that friends of the government of the day -- the NDP government -- are readily accessing public funds and collecting unconscionably huge severance buyouts.

In his report the auditor general speaks to the issue of what should be done when senior employees, senior executives, leave the government, receive these huge buyouts and then are back on the public payroll in one form or another.

It's probably understating the case in the extreme to say that if there's one component of this whole issue that the public finds particularly offensive, it is when an individual receives $300,000, $400,000 or half a million dollars as a severance buyout when they leave one public position and within a matter of months land on their feet and begin receiving a taxpayer-supported salary for doing another job within the public sector, be it in government or in a Crown agency.

[ Page 5857 ]

I want to refer to what the auditor general said in his report. This is on page 10:

"Public interest in severance packages for senior executives has frequently been roused by reports of 'double-dipping'. This is a situation in which a terminated employee, after having received a termination package, gains other employment within any government sector during the period of time on which the severance settlement was calculated, effectively drawing two salaries in that time."

That circumstance -- that situation -- has existed at least since this government took power, and, in fact, well before this NDP government came to power. It's taken to this point -- to this date, July 16, 1997 -- for us to begin debating legislation that would put a stop to this practice.

I have to ask myself: why was the government dragging its feet? Why was the government reluctant to bring this legislation before the House sooner? -- except, perhaps, that they weren't nearly as upset by the way some of these severance pay-outs were operating to the benefit of particular individuals.

During the course of debate on what is really a short bill -- it's only a three-section bill -- we will have some questions about the manner in which the bill is crafted. For example, I note that the bill suggests, with permissive language, that PSEC may establish employment termination standards. I'm a bit confused by that kind of approach, that kind of language. I would have thought that the language would have been mandatory, would have been directive, would have been crafted in a way to ensure that those directives would be established and would have removed any sort of discretionary authority from the agency responsible. That's an area of concern, and one that we will be canvassing with the minister. I signal that to her now.

In establishing those standards, I think it is noteworthy that although the auditor general speaks in his report of the need to incorporate common-law standards that are well known -- or certainly well established; they're not particularly well known unless one is engaged in the practice of employment standards law -- there certainly is a body of law that exists that is there to help determine what appropriate severance pay-outs would be. This legislation does nothing to ensure that it will be on those common-law principles that the standards will be based. It leaves that broad discretionary power in the hands of a few individuals, with no guarantee to the public that appropriate standards will be in place. I'm not sure that after the passage of this bill, based on that single provision, we're going to be in any better position to ensure that these exorbitant severance buyouts don't take place, that contracts which enshrine severance provisions that the average person would find unacceptable aren't still signed -- unless there is something compelling the agency responsible to incorporate those common-law standards into their regulatory scheme.

The provisions of this bill that deal with repayment -- or what you might call double-dipping, where an employee has been terminated, has received a severance buyout and then lands back on the public payroll -- the monitoring provisions, I think, are weak. They don't provide the kind of assurance that I think the public is looking for to ensure that where that has taken place, the Crown will be in a position to reclaim the money that has been paid out. Until that assurance exists and is enshrined legislatively and that mechanism exists legislatively, I think, once again, the bill will fail to accomplish what the minister says it is designed to accomplish, its primary objective. That, again, is something that we will need to explore through the committee stage of this bill. Otherwise, it becomes ultimately a very hollow document and falls far short of the expectations of the average British Columbian.

Finally, let me say and highlight that in his report, the auditor general suggested that there should be full disclosure of all severance arrangements in all sectors as a common practice. That is not something that exists now at the Crown corporation level. I don't think this bill provides for it. The minister may suggest differently, but I don't think that the recommendations of the auditor general, insofar as he was calling for full disclosure from all agencies with respect to severance arrangements. . . . I don't think this bill provides for that in the way envisaged by the auditor general. To that extent also, I think it is deficient.

So those are at least four areas that we will need to canvass in more detail as we move through the committee stage of this bill. But I think it is worth emphasizing again at this stage of the debate that it has taken a very long time for this government to move on something it purported to be offended by. We heard more words and saw very little in the way of deeds until this point, when I think the pressure from the public became too much even for this government to bear.

Though we are content to see the legislation come forward now, I don't think this is a moment for the government to be pounding its chest, saying: "We have responded." They have responded in a way, but it has taken a mighty long time, and a great deal in the way of public resources has been paid out -- public severance moneys have been paid out, taxpayer money. A lot of people have received a lot of money that the public questions their entitlement to.

J. Weisgerber: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to this legislation. I rise to speak in support of the legislation, but I rise also to voice some serious concerns over the lack of detail that exists in the legislation.

The problem of excessive pay-outs for senior public servants, for order-in-council appointments, has been with us for a number of years now. I won't pretend that it first appeared with the election of the current government. But certainly, the frequency and the size of the settlements appears to have grown rather dramatically over the last five or six years. It was the rare exception that a severance became a public issue prior to 1991. It has now become commonplace.

As I look at the legislation, I can't help but say, yes indeed, it's legislation that's long overdue. But what in fact does the legislation set out to address? Will it provide the mechanism for a formula for severance? Will it be X number of years employment equals X number of years or months of severance pay? Will it simply define when an employee is entitled to severance, or will it be a combination dealing with the amount of severance that an employee is due and under what conditions?

It's very difficult for most British Columbians to rationalize an assistant deputy minister resigning their position, getting a severance package, and immediately taking employment with another government in another jurisdiction. No rational explanation for that kind of pay-out, that kind of termination, has ever been provided. I don't believe it exists in employment contracts with those senior public servants.

There may be contractual agreements with order-in-council appointments which this arrangement apparently will override. But I'm not sure what it's going to override. We're left to believe that there are going to be regulations brought in 

[ Page 5858 ]

that are going to address all of the shortcomings, all of the difficulties that have been faced by government in dealing with senior employees over the last few years.

I have to ask myself about the principle of giving large pay-outs to employees who earn large salaries. It seems to me that the larger the salary, the longer the severance package is. Not only is the base amount much larger, but if you're earning $300,000 a year, you are entitled to perhaps a year or two years' severance for every year that you worked.

If you happen to be someone who works under employment standards, the formula is pretty finite. So somebody making $7 or $8 or $12 an hour finds themselves entitled to very, very short packages of severance. You've worked for a year, you're entitled to two weeks' pay; you've worked for five years, you may be entitled to five weeks' pay. You know that regardless of how long you've worked, you're going to be entitled to a maximum of about six months' pay. That's a principle that I've never been able to understand.

[8:15]

What I would like to see, and what I would have applauded the government for, is to say that in the absence of a contractual agreement, then the employment standards formula would apply to senior public servants. If there's no collective agreement, and if employment standards is good enough for the average British Columbian, then why isn't that same standard adequate for senior people appointed under order-in-council, or senior people within the bureaucracy who are no longer covered by a collective agreement? Why would you apply a different standard? I can't understand that. I don't know why someone making $300,000 a year is entitled to a such a fundamentally different standard than someone earning $10 an hour.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that whatever regulations we see coming out of this legislation, they will not address that particular inequity in our society. If the Premier believes that we should treat people throughout society, throughout the workforce, fairly and equitably, perhaps that particular standard can be applied.

Again, I want to say that I think that legislation to control and to manage terminations and severances is important. I understand that over the last decade or so, governments have got away from putting any specific information into legislation. But I think that this bill brings that to a new art: this bill says absolutely nothing. This bill gives the reader no clue as to whether or not the intent is to constrain severances, whether it is to limit circumstances under which termination results in severance pay, or whether it is in fact to expand it, to enlarge it, to make the settlements greater. All this says is that we have legislation which will supersede or override contractual agreements with particular employees, that we are going to establish termination standards for exempt employees, and that there is going to be, by regulation, the adoption of these standards. So while we are at a loss to get any sense of the specifics of this legislation at second reading stage, my fear is that we are going to be even less able to get information at committee stage, because the bill is so bereft of any specifics.

In closing, let me urge the government to consider the Employment Standards Act, to consider that they already have legislation which deals with those people who don't have collective agreements and find themselves working for private sector employers. That's legislation that this government has amended; it's legislation whose standards this government is apparently comfortable with. I say to the minister: apply the same standards to your senior bureaucrats and to your order-in-council appointments that you apply to those people in the lower-wage echelon who don't have the protection of a collective agreement. If you do that, then I expect that not only I, but all British Columbians, will applaud your move into this area of legislation.

K. Whittred: I will speak with great enthusiasm in support of this particular bill. However, I share the concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues in terms of the lack of specifics surrounding the bill.

I think that there's no one in the province that is more appropriate to speak to this bill than someone from the North Shore. In the last year or two, there has been a revolving door with high-priced senior health workers moving in and out, the same people coming from one area to another.

I have to ask the same question that has already been asked, and that is: why has it taken this long for the government to get to the point of introducing a bill? It seems as though there wasn't an occasion to address this issue until public outrage absolutely forced it. If we can use the North Shore as an example, we find a situation where the senior health administrator had already received a substantial severance from another health district. She immediately accepts that severance and moves to the North Shore, where she is in another high-paying job. When that took place, the administrator of the hospital was moved on and was paid a high severance. A year later, the hospital administrator -- a different one -- was once again let go with severance. It is no wonder the public looks at this and says: "Enough!"

I would like to share with you, hon. Speaker, and with the minister, a story about a nurse who phoned me the other day. This nurse had been nursing at a care facility, a residential home, for more than 20 years. She has lost her job. This particular nurse is the sole provider for her family. Her husband is disabled. Her children are in their twenties, so they are grown, but still somewhat dependent on the family. Her questions, I think, were quite topical. They were along these lines. Why, after working at this institution for twenty-odd years as a charge nurse -- I believe that is the expression -- she is let go and gets something like six months of unemployment insurance, or whatever it is? A senior executive -- as my colleague from Peace River South so eloquently pointed out -- who makes a quarter of a million dollars would get a pay-out. I share the concerns of my colleague from Peace River South: it has never made any sense to me that the more money you make, the more money you get if you leave your job. It makes absolutely no sense. The other thing that makes no sense to me is why people in these positions get campers or Jeeps. I cannot for the life of me see what a camper or a Jeep has to do with being either a health care executive or, in cases that I am familiar with, a school superintendent.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time repeating these issues, because they have already been addressed. I think that I have made my point. Like the speakers before me, I am very concerned about the lack of specifics in this bill. I'm not sure that they are going to address the concerns that have been raised. I'm going to be looking very carefully at the standards that are supposedly available to try to discover what kinds of regulations are going to be the outcome. Thank you.

[ Page 5859 ]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this discussion of Bill 20. I'm going to keep my comments very brief. I think the colleagues on the official opposition side of the House have been very thorough in their comments, and I won't attempt to simply duplicate what they've had to say. This is a brief bill, and I'll keep my comments brief.

What the bill does, as has been noted, is provide statutory authority for the Public Sector Employers Council to establish employment termination standards. I think this is a very important step for the government to be undertaking. It's laudable, and it's long overdue. Hopefully, the consequence of the bill will be that in the years ahead we will see severance settlements that are reasonable to the taxpayer as well as fair to the severed individual. I think both sides of that coin are critical. We need to have settlements which are fair and reasonable. I think it's regrettable, but I think it's also a fact that we have seen, through the life of the NDP government since 1991, a litany of very questionable settlements between the government and public bureaucrats.

The member for Matsqui has very thoroughly discussed this litany of questionable settlements, and I don't propose to duplicate that. But I do want to note just a couple of the ones that are most prominent, at least in my mind -- for example, the $313,000 settlement with Connie Munro, the WCB appeals commissioner. The Premier, for example, is quoted as saying: "I think the contract provisions are unacceptable. I think the contract has had lots of public scrutiny, and the government has said consistently that it is not an acceptable contract." The same day, April 6, 1996, the Premier again notes with respect to Connie Munro: ". . .what we've been doing is ensuring that this kind of contract never happens again." Regrettably, it did happen again, and it happened again on numerous occasions. Hopefully, with this bill we are moving to an era where we do not see this kind of unacceptable settlement again.

The second example I'd offer at this point is that of Gordon Austin of the Health Labour Relations Association, of $525,000. Again, we have a quote from a newspaper: "The Premier said on Monday he opposes any severance payment to Austin: 'That's my position. Absolutely no money will be paid by taxpayers.' " So we have from no less an authority than the Premier, obviously, ample evidence that there have been numerous, unacceptable severances over time between this NDP government and some employees in the public sector. Hopefully, this bill will go some measure to resolving that.

We've also seen, particularly since the recent botched attempt at regionalization by the NDP, a real flurry of severance settlements within the health care bureaucracy. I believe the total is near $3 million in settlements to date that were occasioned by people departing for, among other reasons. . . .

[8:30]

G. Abbott: We don't know? Among other reasons, the departures resulted from regionalization. In looking down the list, perhaps some of these settlements are reasonable, particularly given the turmoil that was occasioned by the twists and turns surrounding regionalization. Obviously we take some exception -- and certainly will be doing so in Bill 28 -- to the manner in which regionalization has been imposed on the province. Given the twists and turns and so on involved in regionalization, it's not surprising that we see a lengthy list of severances.

Others may wish to deal with this in greater detail. The most notable is the severance settlement with Ron Mulchey, the CEO of St. Paul's Hospital, which is somewhat in excess of $600,000 -- clearly out of the ballpark in terms of what might be fair and acceptable. Hopefully, under the provisions of Bill 20, although as the member for Peace River South and others have noted, we don't get that kind of clear direction in this bill of where the council will be going on this. . . .

In conclusion -- and again I promised to be brief, and I'll actually follow through at this point -- it's an important step in the right direction. It may not provide everything that's needed to bring effect to the stated aims of government in this regard, but it is a step in the right direction. The member for Matsqui and other colleagues have outlined concerns and apparent deficiencies in this bill, and certainly they are right. But I won't attempt to duplicate or enunciate these deficiencies again.

Despite its deficiencies this bill is long overdue, and it's very much a step in the right direction. We -- at least I will -- on this side of the House will be supporting the bill. I was very relieved when the Premier appeared in the House. I thought that perhaps this Bill 20 might be suffering the same fate as Bill 44. Fortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. It appears that Bill 20 is safe and secure, so I'm very pleased to conclude my remarks now, hon. Speaker. Thank you for your rapt attention.

S. Hawkins: As the member for Shuswap mentioned, it is a brief bill, but hopefully it will have far-reaching implications for fair and reasonable expenditure of public dollars. As some of the members who spoke previously said, this bill is long overdue. It didn't come before this House before the public expressed outrage, dismay and impatience over the severance packages that we've seen in the last few years.

We've seen precious taxpayer dollars frittered away while the government pretended to be outraged and expressed this outrage over some of these settlements. It's interesting, because some of the members opposite and the Premier came in and, when the member from Peace was speaking, said: "Well, that was the Socred contract." There were many more that the NDP made that were settled out and settled in severance, and they did nothing about it until this bill came before the House six years after they came into power. So it shows a little bit of hypocrisy.

Isn't it ironic, as well, that at the same time in the past six years that this government purports to protect health and education, we see precious health care and education dollars being spent on these severance packages? From the health care budgets, let's just read over a few for the record -- and I think some of the members had mentioned them before: Inge Schamborzki, Vancouver Hospital, $200,000; Gordon Austin, $525,000; Bob Smith, Lions Gate, $330,000: as the hon. member for Shuswap mentioned, Ron Mulchey, St. Paul's Hospital, $600,000. And it goes on and on. There's another one from Surrey just recently, which the member for Shuswap mentioned. Over the bungling of the bureaucracy and problems that regionalization has, we see a CEO from Surrey just fired recently -- I believe June 11. He gets $100,000 in severance, and he was just at that region for a year. We see outrage, we see quotes from the Premier saying that it's disgusting. Yes, it was disgusting; it still is disgusting.

Hopefully, this bill will address some of those concerns that the public has had with the government being responsible and accountable for spending public dollars and failing in that regard to do that for the past six years. These contracts should have been reviewed, and the standards for reasonable 

[ Page 5860 ]

severance packages should have been reviewed long ago. This bill is long overdue. We will be supporting this bill, and it is disappointing that it has taken this long to come to the House.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just let me make a couple of remarks in closing debate. I found the comments of the members opposite useful. I know that this is the kind of legislation that does lend itself to a bit of rhetoric, and I accept that, because the issue is important. There are certainly very strongly held opinions in the public about what, if any, severance is deserved by public employees who lose their job for whatever reason.

Let me just address a couple of the concerns about who is covered. I know we will get into this in committee stage, but all of the broad public sector exempt employees are covered by this legislation. The question arises about why it took so long. I know it's easy for all of us. . . . I expect that if the roles were reversed, we would take exactly the same position: why has it taken so long for the government to introduce this legislation?

Well, the fact is that we tried to do this in a voluntary, cooperative, consensus model with the employers in the broad public sector. We did introduce voluntary guidelines. For the very first time, under the leadership of our former Premier, we struck employers councils. We organized the broader public sector into employers councils for the first time ever. Those employers councils established guidelines for severance, and they tried to enforce those guidelines in a voluntary way with the various employer agencies across government.

The fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases they were successful, and in some they failed. Voluntary guidelines did not work with a certain number of employers. So that's why, after almost two years of trying to enforce voluntary guidelines, we are compelled to bring in legislation.

I suppose we could be criticized for trying a voluntary, consensus approach, and so be it. But we did try that. We tried to bring cooperation to this issue, and in certain circumstances it failed. Now we are forced to introduce legislation because a couple of bad apples have spoiled it for the whole barrel.

The legislation is comprehensive. I do look forward to a clause-by-clause debate on this matter. I know that different views are held on both sides of the House about severance: should there be severance or should there not? The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has actually indicated to me that in certain circumstances the government is obligated to pay severance under common law. I admit that he's advocating common law. . . . But who can ignore common law? The member is quite right. I have had other people suggest -- in the public domain, anyway -- that such a severance settlement may seem reasonable for long-term employees. Then there are others. . . .

I am on the record saying that I find it very difficult under any circumstances to understand how anybody in the public domain can leave a job with $500,000 in severance. I admit to that. I come from a background where that is simply not the case.

So we have legislation before us, and I'm very much looking forward to debating it. Our government is introducing legislation that is unprecedented across Canada. While the members opposite may vilify us for being late, it is groundbreaking legislation, and I very much look forward to debating the technicalities on a clause-by-clause basis.

I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 28.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The assessment found that while regionalization was still very much a necessity and an important ingredient in protecting the medicare services B.C. families depend upon, changes were necessary to address real and perceived flaws both in the model and in the way it was being implemented around the province. The input gathered during the review formed the basis for our Better Teamwork, Better Care approach introduced last fall, which is a simpler, more streamlined version that puts the needs of patients first.

This legislation represents an important step forward in getting on with the important changes in the governance and management of B.C. health care services -- changes designed to make the system more efficient, cut waste and duplication, all in order to keep the health care services we value affordable for the long haul. Not only will they serve to strengthen the lines of accountability between our ministry and the new governing bodies, but they will also allow for the establishment of necessary checks and balances for the appointment and activities of our regional health boards and community health councils to ensure the highest standards of care are upheld and to assure that the best use of taxpayer dollars is made.

While a number of these amendments in this bill are simple technical changes of a housekeeping nature, some are significant in scope. Several amendments relate specifically to the composition of our regional health boards and community health councils, a topic that was widely debated as part of the assessment process. At that time, many board and council members suggested that given the lack of remuneration and the cost of running a campaign, the low-profile governance role would likely only appeal to health care providers and single-issue candidates. Moving to fully appointed boards is the best way to ensure that our regional health boards and community health councils offer the right blend of skills, knowledge and experience to deal with increasingly complex governance issues in a climate of growing fiscal challenges and rapid technological change.

This decision is reflected in amendments to section 4 of the act, which clarifies that the selection of board and council members will be done by appointment. However, the process will be broadened within the next year or so through some form of local nomination process.

We have also responded to concerns expressed about the rigidity of the act relating to the former appointment formula 

[ Page 5861 ]

for RHBs and CHCs by deleting specific requirements for local government, aboriginal, service provider and other representation in order to allow for a greater flexibility to respond to the requirements of individual regions and communities. However, it should be noted that we have made the provision through policy to reserve one seat for a physician and one for a health care provider on each board and council to ensure that their input and expertise is reflected in the process of health care decision-making.

The appointment powers conferred through the act also include the power to name the chair, recognizing the need to ensure that the individuals at the helm of our boards and councils reflect the skills needed for this important and complex administrative and public policy role. They also include the ability to place a ministry employee on a board or council in an ex officio capacity to allow for close coordination between the board and the ministry and an ongoing awareness of ministry policies and regional plans. A subsection of the act has also been changed to remove the power to remunerate our health board members, reflecting a long tradition of volunteer service in governance of health care services.

[8:45]

Several amendments contained in the act will allow us to achieve that objective. They include a new section allowing the Minister of Health to give direction to the new governing bodies if situations arise in which boards or councils are unable to adequately respond to public needs. The Health Authorities Amendment Act also includes several amendments designed to assist us in breaking down the walls of bureaucracy that have traditionally existed within our health care system, which allowed our major publicly funded health care providers to operate in virtual isolation.

Prior to the shift to regionalization, over 700 different boards governed the health care delivery process across the province, creating an environment of duplication and waste. Amalgamation of our major health care providers with our new governing bodies is essential to the creation of a more integrated, efficient and cost-effective health care system. The act reflects this with an amendment allowing the Minister of Health to direct the amalgamation of a particular agency with a board or council if voluntary amalgamation does not occur, where it is determined to be in the public interest. Certainly the more facilities that can be brought under a single management and governing structure, the more resources we can divert away from administration and into the direct patient services that British Columbians depend upon.

I would also like to draw attention to section 16.2, a new addition to the act which makes provision for trust agreements involving property and other assets that may have been bequeathed or donated to a hospital or other health care facility. Such agreements would ensure that when the facility amalgamated with the regional health board or community health council, the trust would be maintained and the wishes of the benefactor respected.

Each of the amendments contained in the Health Authorities Amendment Act reflects necessary changes in our approach to the governance and management of health care services as we work together with all of our partners throughout the system to better tailor the delivery of patient care to the priorities of the people in their own communities.

At a time when the challenges facing medicare have never been greater, British Columbians expect and rely upon us not to lose sight of what we're trying to protect. I really truly am confident that these amendments, brought forward in the spirit of our Better Teamwork, Better Care regionalization approach, will play a vital role in keeping medicare affordable and sustainable into the twenty-first century.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 28, I would perhaps note -- I don't think I'm wrong in saying this -- that of the members on the opposition ranks who are present with us tonight, I think that I stand alone as one of those present in the chamber right now who actually stood in this chamber when a former Health minister stood at a seat opposite, where the current Health minister now stands, and introduced this new and wonderful bill that was going to provide us with regional health boards and community health councils.

This new Closer to Home program, which was going to be the be-all and end-all for the communities in British Columbia, was going to be a program initiated by local grassroots involvement of people from within the community to bring the communities directly into the engagement of health care delivery within their system, to decentralize power out of the office of the minister back into the communities so that we could bring health care closer to home.

We were told that one of the ways we were going to be able to do that in the existing structure, or the structure that was to be established, was for us to make sure that when the regional health boards and the community health councils were established, there would be a provision to make sure that the minister would not have the capacity to dictate, to direct and to otherwise run the board. We were told that what needed to happen was for the community to come together and to volunteer their time and their energy and their work to find a structure within the community health council or the senior regional health board that would provide an opportunity for the communities to be directly engaged in the provision of health care services to meet the needs of their community.

That's what we were told. We were told that one of the ways we were going to do that was to make sure that the community would have involvement by allowing one-third of the members of the board to come from within the community. And Ms. Cull -- who was then the Minister of Health -- stood up and assured us over and over and over again that that government, that party, was committed to having members elected from within the community because they believed in the fundamental basic principle of democracy, which said that we should elect members from within the community to serve on those boards. Even though the act didn't specifically say that they would be elected, because it said they would be drawn from within the community, we pressed them on it.

Hon. Speaker, I know there are others who will reflect back on that debate that night, both in second reading and more specifically in committee stage, where we pressed that Minister of Health and said: "Give us assurance; assure us that what you are doing is not diminishing the community involvement and the community role in the delivery of health services."

We were told: "Absolutely not. We will have one-third from within the community by way of election and another 

[ Page 5862 ]

third" -- just to make sure that the minister didn't have a majority of members on the board through appointment -- "is going to come from within the ranks of local government."

That's what we were told; that's what we were promised. At that time, when the Health Authorities Act was brought into this chamber, there were members on this side of the House in the opposition ranks that pleaded with the minister and said: "Look, we are not sure this model will work. We think that the model you're attempting to put into place is complex, unproven, untested. What we need to do is take that model and establish a pilot project, or two or three pilot projects, that reflects the diversity of communities in the province from urban to rural, and let's see how those pilot projects work. Don't disrupt the whole health care system to bring in an unproven, untested process."

The minister of the day rejected that and said: "No, we're not going to have pilot projects. We have faith and we have confidence in the people in the communities of the province to make the system work." That's what we were told. So off they went to establish community meeting after community meeting -- filled with all kinds of the very best talent that we have from every community in British Columbia -- to sit down and try and make this system, this structure, work.

And they did. Certainly within my own community and many communities that I'm familiar with around the province, people gave up hours and hours and hours of their time in meeting after meeting after meeting, trying to hammer out something that would work and make this government's proposals on health care both relevant within their community and cost-effective in the delivery of services to the people who most need those services -- and those are the patients who depend on them.

Hours of work -- volunteer work. It is incredible to note that right at the very point where the community health councils and the regional health boards were finally coming together. . . . There were very complex issues around jurisdiction over certain matters in terms of health care dollars. There were very complex issues with respect to other private agencies that were delivering services, particularly extended-care services, services to seniors, in-home services, all of which had to be brought together under this new umbrella that was to be worked on. They were very complex because there were many societies that operated out there with people who had given of their own time and many people who had given of their own money to make those private societies or those societies that worked for health care delivery have those services integrated under the new model.

The minister said: "We have faith and trust that the people within the communities can make it work." Do you know what? Reluctant as so many of us were who were on this side of the House, as much as we said: "We want it done in a pilot project; please do not ram this down our throat; please take your time, work this thing through properly. . . ." As much as we did not like the model, we begrudgingly said: "Okay, if that's what we have to have, if that's what is passed in this bill, we will trust the minister. We will trust this government. We will trust that the model and the system they're putting into place is the one that will best serve British Columbians, and we will do what we can to make it work."

And we did, and so did the community volunteers -- people who gave up so many hours of unpaid volunteer time to try and make it work. At the very point that we were about to put in place the regional health boards and community health councils, we have a new Minister of Health -- in fact, we went through a couple of Ministers of Health. Guess what, folks: "It's going to change."

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

All of the hours of community work, all of the efforts, all of the energy, all of the promises, the promise after promise that was made to those societies -- independent societies who'd given up their own time, many who gave up their own money, who went out and raised all kinds of services so that they can be provided in their communities. . . . Guess what, folks: "We've got a new model." This government, which promised us over and over again in debate in this House, in this Legislature, that we would have elected representatives on those boards, introduced this bill, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, that removes any democratic process from the communities and places all of the powers -- dictatorial as they are in this act -- right in the hands of the minister.

No longer will we have any elected boards. No longer will we have community government representatives. No, no. This minister knows better than anybody in the community; this minister will appoint those boards -- appointed boards.

Why? We hear tonight that it's because we are in an evolutionary stage. Well, evolution, I'm told, takes a while, and certainly trying to find a model of health care that fits under this regime has taken a long while. We're told that the reason that the minister wanted to go to appointed boards is because the remuneration was such that the only people who would be interested in serving on those boards -- says this minister -- would be people who have a vested interest in health care delivery -- i.e., doctors or other health providers or, says the minister tonight, single-issue candidates.

If that is true, how does the minister account for the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer community hours that people gave over the last four years to put this system in place? If that's true, why did these people spend hours and hours and hours in community meetings for years and years and years to make it come together? Why?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They were appointed boards; they weren't elected.

[9:00]

If we're talking about trying to eliminate single-issue candidates, if we're saying the only people who are going to sit on these boards are people who have a vested interest in the health care service, then presumably the minister has a greater wisdom and will decide to appoint people who aren't single-issue candidates.

Just in case the minister makes a mistake in who the minister appoints to the board, well, they put in section 7.1, which says: "A board or council must comply with any general or special direction made by regulation of the minister with respect to the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the board or council." Just in case they made a mistake and they didn't have all of the yes-women and yes-men sitting there doing exactly the bidding of this 

[ Page 5863 ]

government, which this government wants them to do because this government no longer trusts communities, no longer puts faith in the people of British Columbia to have any ability to be able to run their affairs. . . .

There are two breaches of trust that have occurred in this process. The first is that there was a real promise, an absolute promise to have elected boards, and that promise has been broken. It's gone. No more will we have elected boards. The second breach of trust has to do with a much more important issue in the minds of some people who are directly involved in the running of societies. That has to do with where assets are going to rest in terms of ownership after the amalgamations occur. We heard the minister say that people who bequeath gifts will make sure, if they're placed in trusts, that those trusts will be established and maintained.

But let me ask you, hon. Speaker, when we get into the section that deals with what we do with the assets of local societies who have operated extended care services, special needs services, at-home services, where those societies have raised money over the years through a whole host of various money-raising ventures, where people who have given dollars to those societies to make sure that the facilities are properly equipped. . . . Where do those assets rest? Where will those assets be?

The Premier may well wave a white flag, because they have no defence on this legislation, no defence on it. Maybe he's saying: "Okay, 44, 28 -- we'll do them both, get rid of them, and that will be it." That would be a useful way to terminate this debate. But when we get to this bill in committee, we want to know -- and we want to hear from the minister -- how we're going to protect the assets of those societies that are amalgamated into the new regional boards, because the members who sit on the boards of directors of those societies have a fiduciary obligation to the membership of the society.

Let's be clear that where those societies have gone out over the years and raised money for various machines that provide health care services, they're owned by the society. The government can't simply come in and decide that it's going to take those assets, seize them and put them under the jurisdiction of an authority that has been created without the minister providing some level of protection to those people who have been working in those societies in the past. That's the second question on breach of trust in this bill.

When the minister decided that they were going to go on a review, the third area that was looked at was the whole regional concept itself, who would have a regional health board and who would have a community health council. That was a very divisive issue for many communities. Quite frankly, that was done under a former Health minister prior to this Health minister taking over the office.

I want to say that when representation was made to the government on that question in the case of the Powell River-Sunshine Coast area, the government listened, the government did take advice, and the government did listen on the question of the region. That's something that I want to go on the record, because the constituents in the Sunshine Coast and Powell River region had very specific, very definite geographic concerns with respect to the structure of the region.

Other communities were not as lucky. Other communities did not get the same ear that we were able to get. As a result, conflict now exists in an area where conflict was finally starting to be put aside. This government decided it could and would do better. It decided that it wasn't going to listen to the people.

There are other areas that we'll get into in committee stage that deal with the matters of the bargaining units and the labour relations issues. They are more specific to the language and the change in the language. Similarly, we're going to want to look particularly at the question of amalgamation of two or more boards and the matter of liability of those members who sit on the board and how those liabilities may have changed.

Furthermore, we're going to ask this government to defend the position it takes that all power that the all-mighty minister is now going to give to herself and override the opportunity of people at the community level to have some say and some voice in the way that their health services are delivered.

We spend a lot of time in this chamber, many of us, when the House actually sits, which is, in the course of a year, not that long a period. Some of us -- I would hope all of us -- take seriously what we do with respect to our jobs as legislators. Sometimes it's a little difficult to ascertain whether or not we really do take our work seriously. The public, I'm told, doesn't really listen to what we do here and doesn't care. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for a moment.

The public trust that what we present by way of legislation in this House, what we commit to by way of legislators in this House, we will undertake to do. When we commit to have community involvement in health care delivery by way of elected boards, by way of representation from local communities, when we commit to a model that we put into legislation and promise, within this Legislative Assembly, that we will put in place the model that we introduced, the public expects that we will hold to our word.

What becomes even more galling is when we put that in place and then go out to the community and ask the community to give of themselves to make our commitment work within their community, they do that; and we then turn round and arbitrarily change it -- change it without consultation, change it without any notification and do it by order-in-council, which is exactly what happened. It was done by order-in-council. We learned that all of a sudden the new community health councils and regional health boards would no longer be elected.

All of a sudden this Minister of Health and this government no longer had faith or confidence in the people of British Columbia, and all of the powers once again rested within this minister. And why? Because this minister wants to dictate the delivery of health policy to British Columbians and does not want the communities to have input, say or to contribute to it.

That kind of sums up where they're coming from as a political party and as a government. They do not really want public input. They do not really want the democratic process to proceed. They do not really care about what the interests and concerns of British Columbians are. They are a party and a government that is stuck on a dogma that is going to be pushed through, come hell or high water, no matter what we 

[ Page 5864 ]

want. That's the attitude they have taken, and that's the attitude that is demonstrated in Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997. That is the reason why British Columbians today have lost confidence and faith in the party that ran with the slogan "Putting People First" and came in and enacted a policy that puts people last.

Hon. Speaker, I don't know how members of the government opposite -- from the Premier down to the minister through to the back bench that sits over here -- can stand up and defend this bill, when not too many years ago they made promises and commitments to the people of British Columbia which they have now rendered completely useless and redundant. I don't know how those members defend that action. The community health councils and regional health boards were barely even in place before the authority that was to be vested in the communities by way of a democratic process was stripped from them, so that once more we could have a dictatorial regime from Victoria deliver our health policies.

I look forward to committee stage. I look forward to hearing this minister defend her actions. This minister, by way of order-in-council, thought she could amend the legislation. And when I put out a letter to all of the regional health boards and community health councils demanding that there be an explanation for how this government could breach its own legislation, I was told that they didn't need to change the legislation. We pressed it with respect to legal opinion, and then: "Oh, my goodness, it's going to get tricky here, because somebody is reading the law." Well, it certainly isn't the group opposite.

Therefore what we have to do here is amend the legislation. We have to retroactively amend the legislation so that all of a sudden this government can start to conform to its legislation -- conform, that is, until it makes the next change, which it will likely do in September or October or November by order-in-council and, as a result of that, will once again amend the legislation.

R. Thorpe: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to have the members over on the government side tone down the noise so that we can hear the speaker here, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a stranger on our side.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, to the House Leader, there are several strangers on that side.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. The Speaker has made note of that and asks the members that are making the disturbance to cease. I will ask the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to continue.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wonder if my time might start again from the beginning because. . . . I guess not.

I do want to conclude with three comments that I hope the minister will take in a spirit of cooperation. The question of liability and the matter of debt and liability obligations from old boards to new boards are a concern to some community health councils, but not so much regional boards, particularly where those community health councils are now going to have this new creation that's struck -- and I don't know if it's unique to Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- which is going to have some power and authority with respect to determination of regional services. There's some concern on how those liabilities are going to translate. I just flagged that by way of Hansard so that staff can maybe look at that, and if we can have a discussion before committee, who knows, we might save some time in committee stage on that question.

I would like to flag a couple of others. One is the issue with respect to the government's role in being able to force amalgamation where there have already been agreements made with societies with respect to the provisions or division of assets. That's another issue of concern, and I flag that for the minister. I hope that the minister might be prepared to talk in committee about how that's going to operate.

Lastly, I hope we really can have a serious discussion about the wisdom of removing any community involvement in the selection of its members to the community health councils and regional health boards. Notwithstanding the fact that promises were made -- and I can stand and try to challenge this government with respect to its commitments that are broken -- the issue of democratic representation on local community boards is a matter of principle for a lot of people in this province. With respect to health care provision, it's a matter of serious, serious consequence to some boards, particularly boards that have worked well in the past, who are concerned that this new structure may eliminate their opportunity to have a fair say and fair involvement in the delivery of health services within their community. I think those are legitimate concerns; they really are.

I heard the minister say that there will be a movement that -- I think the words were -- will be broadened to involve the community. I hope we can flesh that out a little bit more in some detail in committee stage, because there is a general principle with respect to community involvement in the election of community boards. It's an important democratic principle and one that can't be lost sight of, notwithstanding the need to try to bring in more efficiencies in health care delivery.

Those are my comments on Bill 28 tonight. Once again, I do hope that the comments are listened to and taken seriously, because these are issues that I think are important if we are indeed to protect our health care delivery. This member and the party I represent certainly hold as one of our highest priorities the protection and maintenance of a truly affordable and accessible health care system that does provide opportunity for all British Columbians to be able to have access to a universal system that does not enter us into a two-tiered -- one rich, one poor -- system in British Columbia.

With those remarks, I'll take my seat, and I look forward to further comment in committee stage.

[9:15]

You know, it's very, very disappointing. Under this model that the minister introduces into this bill, the regional health board and the community health council members become unpaid employees of the government, and they're mandated, again in the new section 7.1, to do the NDP government's bidding.

[ Page 5865 ]

In this bill and under this model that the minister is introducing -- which she has already put into place, because she made all the appointments in the past year -- the accountability to the community and patients in the community has gone out the window. You know, these folks that sit on the boards and councils now report to the Minister of Health.

We saw that in one very, very evident example: the contract with Elizabeth Cull in the capital health region. The community was outraged. They thought that a thousand-dollar-a-day contract with the health board, which this minister appointed, was outrageous. They thought that that was a waste of taxpayer dollars, and they wanted something done about it; they wanted something done about that contract. The minister and the Premier even said it was ridiculous and outrageous. But nothing was done. There was no way -- no vehicle, if you will -- for the community to get the board's attention, other than going to the media and sending letters to the opposition and to the minister to express their outrage.

When we tried to get this minister's attention and asked her to show some leadership in doing something with the capital health board's decision to pay Elizabeth Cull $1,000 a day for a six-month contract, which I think the minister would admit is a lot of money. . . . Seventy thousand dollars for a six-month part-time contract is a lot of money. When this government says that it's protecting health and education and that it's spending those precious dollars responsibly, it was hard for the community to imagine that this money was going to a failed NDP cabinet minister in their district. When they tried to raise those concerns with the minister, nothing was done. Nothing was done, because they were government-appointed board members, and they knew where their loyalty lay. It lay with the government. There was no accountability down to the community level.

The community tried to express that. They expressed outrage; they expressed dismay. They were very disappointed, and they were angry. I remember letters being sent to the paper. There were letters talking about how they were never going to donate to the Hospitals Foundation again if that's the way the money was going to be spent. They were never going to volunteer for committees or anything in this hospital district or health district, if that's the way their dollars were going to be spent. But nothing was done, and now this minister has the gall to put it into legislation.

I think it's absolutely outrageous. It's a slap in the face for those people who worked endless hours. I heard one of the members on this side talk about that: endless volunteer hours were spent on boards, trying to reshape health care, trying to bring health care decision-making closer to home, serving on boards and on committees to try to improve health care in their communities. What thanks did they get for years and years of planning for New Directions, as this government put it -- for three years? They got fired by this government; that's what they got. That's the thanks they got for trying to work with this government for three years on New Directions.

Then, after two or three Health ministers, we got a minister who introduced, after a review, what she calls Better Teamwork, Better Care. But we know who the team is, because she fired the team that the community picked. It's now the NDP team.

The legislation is very clear that they are going to be unpaid employees of the government and that they are going to be mandated to do what the government wants them to do. The NDP have removed democracy from health care decision-making. That's not really something that is a surprise, because in the famous words of the Forests minister: "Remember, government can do anything it wants." It has shown this in this legislation, because that's exactly what they've done: they've staffed the boards with their own supporters.

We asked about the process of how these appointees were chosen for these boards. We asked about that, and we were told that it was people from the community. We asked: "How were they selected?" They were selected because the minister thought that they were appropriate. Well, what about what the community thinks? The community was promised that it would have elected representation and that it would be able to choose who sat on these boards, so that the community knew who these boards would be accountable to. That's been removed. The community's right to choose who they see fit to represent them on these boards, so that health care decision-making can be made for the community, has been taken away from them in the last year, and it certainly has been removed forever in this legislation under this government. That's very, very disappointing.

When I travelled around the province in February and March, I listened to people's concerns about our health care system. Overwhelmingly, what I heard was that people want the right to choose the representatives who sit on their health boards and councils. Now, I heard that. I know that other members on this side of the House heard that, and I don't know why the members on that side of the House are deaf to that. We saw letters to the editor; we heard radio and TV interviews. We hear people calling us and saying: "This is wrong. Why are our societies getting fired? Why aren't there going to be elections, like we were promised? What's going on here?"

People are absolutely demoralized, they're disappointed and they're tired. They worked for hours trying to get their community involvement into the health care reform, and they got fired for their attempts. This government has just created a whole new bureaucracy around this, but it's a bureaucracy that they can now control, because that's what this legislation puts into place -- and that's wrong. That is wrong, and we will not be supporting this bill.

The other point in this bill -- and it was brought up by a previous speaker -- is the amalgamation issue. For many communities amalgamation equals expropriation, and these concerns were again raised by people around the province. The minister talks about voluntary amalgamation. There was nothing voluntary about it; if they didn't do it, they were taken over. They had a gun held to their head. They either handed over their property voluntarily, or it was taken away from them. And now there's a section in the bill that allows it to happen under legislation, and that's wrong.

We see a problem in the Chemainus area on the Island, with a community quite concerned about a piece of property, which was gifted to their community, on which a health facility sits. They wanted reassurance from this government that this gift of property would remain with the community. They had no issue with amalgamation, they had no issue with regionalization, they had no issue with health care reform, because they said they worked with this government and voluntarily went ahead with amalgamation. But they wanted some legal reassurance that this gift of property would remain with the community, and this government couldn't promise them that.

There was a meeting about three weeks ago. Over 800 people in the community attended it -- 836 to be exact -- and they still weren't listened to. This minister has yet to answer their questions on why their board was fired and removed from a position of trust that people in their community placed 

[ Page 5866 ]

them in to make responsible decisions for them. They felt the responsible decision for them was to protect the interest in this land for their community. And this government has now expropriated that land. They have taken it away. They are now going to enact that into legislation, and that's wrong.

People around the province are very, very disappointed; they will not be happy with the provisions in this bill. The sections don't speak of the promises that this government made to the people of British Columbia. In the last act that was passed -- the Health Authorities Act -- this government promised elections and they promised fair representation, and that's not what this act is promising. This act speaks to broken promises and broken commitments.

The last part of the act speaks to the labour union and health care bargaining. It's the same old story. We could sit in here day in and day out and talk about the same old story about no consultation. When this bill came out, we heard that again from the health employers. We heard there was absolutely no consultation with the health employers on these provisions, and they are the ones that are charged with the responsibility for sitting down with the various parties and bringing about collective agreements. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is unreal that they wouldn't be consulted when there are important changes in legislation like this. It absolutely boggles the mind, but it's the same old song, over and over again. Every time we see legislation coming before the House, we find that stakeholders -- parties that should have been consulted by this government -- are not consulted. When will they learn?

This bill came before the House, and then we hear people saying: "Well, what's going on? How come we weren't consulted?" From what we hear, the provisions for health care bargaining in this bill -- the concerns brought forward -- are that it's going to bring chaos to health care bargaining. We hear it's going to reduce flexibility, as well.

The question is: how come the government doesn't hear that? I think they choose to ignore that, because I really do believe that they think they can do anything they want.

In committee stage we will be canvassing these issues very closely. We will be representing the concerns of British Columbians, unlike what this government does when it brings forward legislation like this. We will not be supporting this bill.

K. Krueger: It strikes me that Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997, is an absolute classic of NDP legislation. It does the usual things, and it does them all at once. It takes away power from the electorate, for one thing, and sucks the power into the power base -- the Premier and his cabinet. It wastes tremendous resources -- resources that were available and fully used by the health care system of British Columbia up until this government seized control and launched its ill-conceived health care regionalization initiative. As a major caboose to the act, it gives gifts to the Premier's buddies: the construction trade unions, the B.C. Federation of Labour -- the big union buddies of the NDP.

It does it at the expense of the public, contrary, once again, to previous commitments made by the Minister of Employment and Investment. When referring to the Dorsey report in 1995 he said, "The new bargaining structure will improve flexibility in the health sector while protecting the interests of employees," and that this government was accepting the Dorsey recommendations. Now, of course, it is reneging on that commitment. It's turning the clock back and giving the gifts to the Premier's buddies.

So once again we see this tremendous consolidation of power in the hands of the Premier and his designate, the Minister of Health -- a power grab from the people of British Columbia, the people who used to have a say in how their health care institutions were run. It's a tremendous decentralizing of responsibility. So somehow these fuzzy organizations called community health councils, called regional health boards, called something else -- which can be fired, reappointed and fired again, back and forth, hither and yon at the whim of the minister -- will have the responsibility for all the things that are going wrong and will go wrong in this inane structure, while centralizing the actual control and the power in the hands of the minister. Isn't it ever thus in an NDP administration?

[9:30]

Consider the arbitrary firings of the fine people who served on boards for hospitals and health care facilities throughout this great province before the NDP launched this crazy regionalization initiative: the way that they were abused, the way that they were thanked for their years of service and all the effort that they put in. And even people since then -- people that this same NDP government appointed to community health councils and regional health boards were abruptly fired by this minister without so much as a thank you, and then some of them -- the same people -- were reinstated on regional health boards. Many of them, like the people who worked so hard in Barri�re on the community health council. . . . They were never reappointed, never thanked, and were abused for all the effort that they had put in.

The sort of consequences that flow from that type of management behaviour at the top by the minister are exemplified, I think, by what's gone on in Kamloops and through the Thompson regional health board, which was one of the boards that was summarily fired and then substantially reappointed. In the process, decisions were taken and mistakes were made, from my point of view -- including the firing of the chief executive officer of Royal Inland Hospital, who will no doubt be receiving a very healthy severance award either through the courts or from the government, through negotiation, because it's no way to run a business. He had a contract that stipulated that he was entitled to that if a major change was made in his contract or in his employment.

One person -- meaning the minister -- will never be able to do the job of running our health care system as well as all those thousands of volunteer people around the province did. It's physically impossible. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast related the litany of ridiculous decisions made by this government as it's gone through the regionalization process and the way that good people have been abused, a litany of waste and of disorganization -- absolutely lamentable.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Of course, one thing this government is good at is putting good names on things -- names that sound good. I remember 

[ Page 5867 ]

when this government proudly talked about the New Directions policy. It wasn't very long after that when we heard people in the system referring to it as the No Directions policy. Of course, that's exactly what it's been for years now, so that a state-of-the-art health care system that was the pride of British Columbia and an example to the world has been brought to its knees. It's a travesty, it's a boondoggle, and it's been a nightmare -- the way this government has dealt with the health care system in British Columbia.

The results are not laughable; the results are horrific. The results are lineups -- tremendous lineups for health care services; the results are bed closures; the results are people from my constituency scheduled for life-saving surgery being told at the last moment, sometimes when they're already in Vancouver for surgery, that they can't have the surgery because there's no bed for them to recover in -- of all the preposterous situations; the results are ambulances being turned away from hospitals and people dying because they're not getting the care they would have got if those hospitals could have accepted them. Pain and grief and heartache and death -- actual death -- are the results of this government's failure to manage a health care system that used to be the envy of the world.

There are people waiting in lineups for intermediate care and extended-care facilities throughout British Columbia, people who have reached the age in life where they need to be cared for in those facilities, where their families can't really cope with them any longer and where they're being robbed of their dignity. And their families are being robbed of everything that families ought to be able to expect from a government to which they've paid taxes all their lives, because they have to try and cope with a person in the last stages of their lives, when we have a system that ought to be coping with that for them.

When I talk to the Minister of Health, as I have on occasion, about individuals from my constituency who are finding themselves on wait-lists, who are unable to get access to facilities or to surgery, she repeatedly will answer: "Those are doctors' decisions." Well, that's absolute baloney. This minister has consolidated power in her own hands. It's up to her where budgets go, who makes decisions, how things are run. It's not up to doctors at all. It's fallacious and wrong to blame them for situations such as lineups and an absence of beds.

The minister holds all the power, and Bill 28 sets out to make sure that she keeps it. It doesn't even bother pretending anymore that anybody who runs health boards and health care facilities is going to be properly elected, which is what the situation should be and was in the past in this province. The minister has expropriated the public's right to have a say in how health care institutions are run. She's taken it away, and she's made a mess of it in the process. So when she says that doctors make the decisions about who gets surgery and who has health care service available to them, that isn't true. That's hogwash; it's garbage. And I think it demonstrates utter scorn for the public -- utter scorn for truth and for good stewardship of public resources and for responsibilities to the public. I know some of those members across there don't like it at all. I see shame on their faces. They can't be happy about these terrible outcomes of the shameful way that this government does business.

But the government isn't paying attention. The cabinet hasn't been paying attention all night. People sit with their backs to the speakers. The only person paying attention on the other side of the House is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and possibly the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Up until now there's been a whole lot of side conversations going on there -- a Premier with his back to me, a Health minister with her back to me. They don't care. They don't care about the people of British Columbia. They don't care about the utterly demoralized, shipwrecked health care system that they've brought on us. They care about their union allegiances, their buddies in the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Premier's buddies in the construction trades unions that he tried to pad with his Bill 44 -- and at least he's withdrawn that today. They don't care.

Their process has made an utter mockery of NDP consultation, which, of course, is an oxymoron at the best of times. Nobody believes that NDP consultation is genuine; nobody believes that their input is actually going to be valued. People who are appointed to health boards and community councils are given to understand very clearly that their job is to try to come up with recommendations which are what the government wanted in the first place -- and they tell me so. It becomes increasingly obvious to them. Even though they're NDP appointees, they resent that, because it wastes their time, and it's degrading and humiliating to them.

There's something far worse, of course, than a mockery having been made of NDP consultation, which was nothing but a figment of imagination in the first place. That something far worse is that people who were committed to making the health care system in this province work -- people who poured their time, energy, resources and hearts into making it work and were really accomplishing things and were delivering an excellent result -- have been turned away in more ways than one. They've been fired; they've been rejected. They've been made to feel utterly cynical about the way the government values them, because it doesn't. This government has done damage that will last for decades to come, because some of those people will never come back.

So once again, when this miserable government loses power, finally gets out of those chairs and allows people from this side to move in and clean up the mess, we're going to have a whole lot more of a mess to clean up than if Bill 28 hadn't been introduced -- no doubt to be rammed through by the NDP majority. We'll vote against it. We'll resist it, because it is wrong. The way people have been treated by this government in the health care system of British Columbia is a travesty. It's wrong. This government will be rebuked by history and by their own results.

G. Abbott: I'm going to be very brief. I think the member for Matsqui is hoping to speak, as well, and that will conclude our speakers, so we will be able to complete second reading of this bill tonight. I would like to be brief.

I do think it is very important to note some things, though. My colleague from Okanagan West and my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson -- and indeed, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- have made an excellent case tonight against Bill 28, against the new structure of regionalization that has been put in place in British Columbia. I don't plan to duplicate or repeat the excellent arguments that have been made.

There are a few things I want to say about the bill. Obviously one of the principal concerns I have is the degree of autonomy which the new regional hospital boards and community health councils will actually exercise. I had a long and in some ways useful discussion with the Minister of Health in Health estimates about the new structure of regionalization, as did other members, and I think that was somewhat revealing 

[ Page 5868 ]

in terms of the actual degree of autonomy which this government anticipates will be enjoyed by those regional health boards and community health councils. Clearly, from the perspective of the official opposition, it is not what would have been hoped for in anyone's imagination, given the recommendations of several years ago from the Seaton report.

There are a couple of things in the bill I should note about it. In part 2 it outlines changes in the membership structure of the boards. It moves from the old formula -- the New Directions formula -- of one-third elected, one-third appointed by elected boards and one-third appointed by the province. In the new structure, as everyone knows, it moves from the one-third, one-third, one-third, to all appointed by Victoria. I think that's a step in the wrong direction, and we have stated that over and over. Certainly it's a sharp departure from what was recommended by Justice Seaton.

In section 5 of part 2, it is noted that the chair of a board is a member of a board, and is designated chair of the board by the minister. In the new subsection 4(3)(b) there is also the opportunity of the board to elect their own chair if the province decides not to do it. But one would expect -- at least this has been the case so far -- that in fact the degree of autonomy that is enjoyed by the regional health board is so slim that not even the chair of the board is elected by the board. I think that's lamentable, and I think it is indicative of a degree of control from the centre that I think will prove to be very unhealthy and, I suspect, quite unproductive as well.

There are other things I think we should note about it. In section 9 of part 2. . . . And this is just one quote from this bill: "A board or council must comply with any general or special direction made by regulation of the minister with respect to the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the board or council." Again, it is indicative of just how much regional control and autonomy the province is planning to extend to the boards and community health councils in this case.

So there are some very important issues surrounding this bill, and they are so important that the official opposition is going to be voting against it. We don't believe it's right to have purely appointed boards in British Columbia. We believe that people have a right to representation and they have a right to elect those representatives. I was disappointed in the discussion in estimates that the NDP government has no plans at any point, no matter how long they may govern in this province, to consider some portion of elected members on those boards.

[9:45]

In this case, the province has elected to go to what might be termed an at-large system, where the people appointed to the boards are supposed to reflect a broad regional viewpoint. In some respects that may be fine, but I think it defies reality. In a situation where there are scarce resources and there is competition for those resources, when push comes to shove, I think it's very clear that people are going to reflect the concerns of their home towns and their neighbourhoods. I think it's imperative that the structure of these boards fairly represent the composition of the population that comprises the region.

There is no certainty in this bill or in the structure of regional health boards that ensures that there will be equitable representation within any area of a regional health board. So I have a real problem with the method of appointment, the control from the centre. I have a real problem with the degree of autonomy which, as I have noted, the NDP government does not plan to extend to regional health boards and community health councils.

For example, it's very clear that at no point in the future does this government envision that regional health boards or community health councils might have some control over their own labour relations structure. That's going to be governed from the centre forever, as far as they can tell. There is no plan to see that regional health boards and community health councils have some determining say in the 60 percent capital spending contribution coming from the province. That will continue to be controlled from Victoria. There are -- and this is a quote from the estimates -- "a number of caveats" even with respect to operational spending, so there are some real problems with the degree of autonomy which is envisioned within this model.

Just briefly, on the other side of this bill are the provisions that it amends in part 3, "Health Sector Labour Relations." I don't want to deal with this in detail, but I do want to briefly quote here what I'm sure even government members would consider a very fine and objective source with respect to commentary on provincial affairs, that being Vaughn Palmer. According to Vaughn Palmer in his column in the Vancouver Sun on May 27 of this year:

"The result was Bill 28, reopening the door to all the unions affected when the NDP adopted the Dorsey plan less than two years ago. The bill, as Edward Alden noted Saturday in a front-page piece in the Vancouver Sun, risks throwing the health care sector back into a 'chaos' from which it had lately begun to emerge. Gary Moser, representing health care employers, says the proposed law 'undoes a good deal of what the government attempted to do in 1995.' John Shields, head of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, which represents many workers in health care as well, chimes agreement, calling it 'a very destabilizing piece of legislation.' "

M. de Jong: It's been quite a day here in Victoria. I haven't been here long, but I don't think I can remember a day in which a government has done a 180-degree turn on two such fundamental issues as what we've seen with the labour bill earlier today and now this legislation dealing with health care in the province of British Columbia.

My comments will be brief, but I wanted to make them nonetheless. Others have pointed out that this all began with the catchphrase "Closer to Home." That's how it was sold. That was the marquee. Those were the words that were stamped on all the documents, and I have no idea how many millions of dollars were spent sending that slogan out to the doorsteps of British Columbia. That's what the government said it was all about: bringing the decision-making process 

[ Page 5869 ]

closer to communities in British Columbia. The other catchword that was very much a part of that was accountability -- accountability to patients; accountability to the people who are ultimately responsible for paying the bills for health care at the community level, the taxpayers.

The question that I have -- and, to be fair, that many others who are much better informed than I was when all of this began have -- is: accountability to who? That question was uppermost in my mind even in the days when the government said it was contemplating an elected or partially elected board.

There is a line of thought that says: "Follow the money when it comes to accountability." I mean that not in the sense that politicians in this House have been using it most recently, in a particularly partisan way; but there is a line of argument that says that in any sort of an organizational framework you are ultimately responsible or will ultimately be held responsible and accountable by those who are providing the funding. Even under the old scheme, which contemplated a partially elected board, that was very much an issue for me insofar as we were trying to weld this notion of closer-to-home decision-making and vest it in a board whose funding was going to be centrally directed. That problem existed right from the very outset.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We've gone one step further. We've now really confirmed once and for all that if there is going to be any accountability, if there is and we don't know that there will be, it will not be to the communities themselves. It will be to Victoria. Not only will Victoria control the funding, they will now control the appointments of the people to that board.

A concept that I had trouble with from the very outset, insofar as the discrepancy that existed between where the money was coming from and where the decisions were coming from, has now been further complicated by virtue of this government's decision to make a 180-degree turn on a fairly fundamental principle about who was going to be appointed, who was going to sit on these boards. It is not at all an insignificant or minor change of direction on a day where the government has already abandoned, fortunately, another ill-conceived attempt at altering some fundamental principles with respect to labour law in British Columbia.

If one accepts that this notion of closer-to-home decision-making has been abandoned in its entirety by the government, I guess the question that flows from that is: to what extent should British Columbians trust in the ability of this government to make appointments that will reflect the concerns of their community? That's how the process will operate. The people who will be making decisions about health care in the Cariboo, in the eastern Fraser Valley or on northern Vancouver Island will be people not selected by the residents who live there but will be selected by a central bureaucratic organization, a government -- an NDP government in this case -- in Victoria.

I know how those appointments will be made, because I know how they have been made in other instances in my own community. The minister gets on the phone, and he or she calls the NDP party office, if there is one, and says: "Who have we got? Who have we got with an NDP card that either needs to be rewarded or who we can trust to do the right thing?" The question that won't be asked is: "Who is it in that community that has the skill necessary to administer budgets that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars?" That won't be the question that this minister asks when it comes to appointing people to these health boards; that won't be the question. It won't be a question of competence. It will be a question of who we reward, who we have got that needs an appointment or who we can find to do our bidding. The number of dollars, the stakes here, are too high by far for this government, with their track record on patronage appointments and rewards to friends and insiders, to have that kind of authority vested in them. Yet that's what they've done. That's what they purport to do with this bill.

Lest anyone doubt, it represents, as others have said, a complete and utter abandonment of a principle that this government spoke to not so many years ago, of a promise this government made. At the end of the day, it represents yet another flip-flop by a government that on this day, at least, has demonstrated that it really does think before it acts. It really does have little regard for principles it formerly presumed to enshrine, like closer to home decision-making.

So I guess the question I pose and that I'm sure will be explored further, and that the minister and the government will ultimately have to answer for, is: how does this Bill 28, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997, in any way, shape or form further that notion of closer-to-home decision-making? This is a government that's generally very good at titling bills. The titles are always wonderful, hon. Speaker. It's what's between the pages that is most troubling to British Columbians. If the government's headline-writers had got their mitts on this bill, it would be the Further from Home bill.

That's what this is all about. This is all about vesting authority and control in a central administration here in Victoria, and I don't think anyone should underestimate not only the potential for the abuse of that power but the track record this government has in abusing that sort of power. That's why we're voting against the bill.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister's comments will close second reading on Bill 28.

[10:00]

I would just say that the public is ready to move on with Better Teamwork, Better Care. This issue has been decided. We have a government that's had the courage to make a decision and move on. I think that the fear-mongering tactics of the opposition have not worked. The public has rejected them completely. The one time the public stood up was when the physicians threatened to lobby for two-tier health care. That was the time the public stood up and said: "No, we want to have a government committed to single-tier health care."

Our government has made that commitment. We're moving on with bringing health care closer to home in a way that makes sense and delivers for people in this province. It's all very well for the opposition to once again misread the public and come out against what the public wants in the area of health care, and they will do that by voting against this bill.

I move second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 5870 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 34
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Giesbrecht	Walsh
Kasper	Orcherton	Hartley
Priddy	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Cashore
Ramsey	Brewin	Sihota
Randall	Sawicki	Lali
Doyle	Robertson	Smallwood
	Janssen
NAYS -- 17
Gingell	Stephens	de Jong
Anderson	Whittred	Thorpe
Penner	G. Wilson	Barisoff
Krueger	McKinnon	Masi
Chong	Weisbeck	Jarvis
Abbott		Hawkins

Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill Pr401.

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997
(second reading)

M. Sihota: I will just quickly say that this bill comes to this House through the unique process of the committee on private bills. Much of the scrutiny and debate has happened at that level. I certainly want to express my gratitude to the opposition for expediting the process of bringing this bill forward. Many consumers who are impacted by this bill will, I'm sure, stand to benefit. That concludes my comments. I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr401, TD Trust Company Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr401, TD Trust Company Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Bill Pr402 for second reading.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997
(second reading)

M. Sihota: I wish to thank all the members opposite for expediting this bill through the committee on private bills, and I'm sure consumers will stand to benefit from this legislation. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr402, The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr402, The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: I'm sure all members would join me in observing that wouldn't it be lovely if we could do everything this way.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:14 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

[ Page 5871 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a real pleasure to rise tonight to present the '97-98 budget for the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and of the ministry responsible for disability issues. I think there are few services that the government provides that the people of British Columbia value more highly than education, skills and training. Our goal, in a word, is simple: to provide British Columbians with the opportunities to develop the skills and knowledge, the attitudes and values, that they need to participate fully in our province's economic life as well as its social and cultural life.

This ministry brings together the public school system -- the K-to-12 system -- along with post-secondary education and skills training. In each of these areas, we seek the same approach. First, we seek to make education one of the top priorities for our government and for government spending. Over the past five years, this government -- and our province -- has led the country in supporting education, and we are the only province that has consistently increased its investment in education.

Look at the public school system first -- the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system. It is a mammoth investment in the future of our province -- some 1,700 schools, over 35,000 teachers and 22,000 other employees ranging from janitorial staff to school and district administrators. It continues to accommodate rapid enrolment growth, and I anticipate that growth will continue in the next several years. It has averaged an annual growth rate of around 2.4 percent for the past five years, and for the coming year, we're estimating it will be a touch lower than that, probably around 1.8 percent.

The post-secondary system, in which I used to be teacher, includes 28 public universities, university colleges, community colleges, the Open Learning Agency, aboriginal institutes and a variety of other public and private training institutes. The capacity of this entire system is going to be increasing to more than 141,000 full-time-equivalent students this year.

In skills development, on which I understand we're going to be beginning the estimates tonight, the ministry serves some 200,000 clients through a variety of labour force development programs. Our clients there include young people, workers, adults on income assistance and employers in communities, and we serve them well through a network of some 60 skills development offices and public and private community agencies.

I have said, and I will say it again in this chamber, that as a former educator myself, I recognize that there's always a need for additional funding in education. The budget we're debating here tonight was prepared within a context of tight finances in our province and in the face of what I can only describe as abandonment of a funding commitment to education by our federal partners -- our former partners.

Federal off-loading is going to cost British Columbia approximately $110 million in the area of post-secondary education this year. That's the amount of the cuts in the last two fiscal years. Given that sort of challenge, we've had to make some pretty tough decisions, but thanks to prudent management -- both broadly in this government and within this ministry, and we'll talk about some of those initiatives later -- we are able to provide a modest increase in the budget for education.

In the K-to-12 system, operating grants have increased by around $34 million, which is around a 1 percent increase. Because of rapid enrolment growth, this is translated into a slight decline in per-student funding, as everybody knows, of around $43. This has presented some challenges for our school boards, which I'm sure we'll be debating at length. It is important to remember that we have provided funds for our school boards that are the highest per student of any province in Canada. They are the most in Canada again this year.

Over our past six years of government, our grants to public education have increased by 20.6 percent. We're the only province in Canada to increase funding for each of the last six years. If you look across the country, other provinces have cut education by an average of 6.5 percent. Now, as we'll debate, the $43-per-student reduction comes from my determination to have school districts deliver on the savings that they said could be realized by amalgamation and the sharing of services, and I expect $27 million in savings to be realized by our school districts.

[6:45]

Special education enrolment remains around 11 percent of the B.C. student population, and our funding for special education programs is now close to $400 million a year. It has increased by 38 percent since '91-92 -- a huge commitment to inclusion and to providing the special education services that our children deserve. English-as-a-second-language funding increases by around 1.7 percent this year, again reflecting enrolment growth and maintenance of the per-student grant. Aboriginal education receives a 1.8 percent increase, also to reflect enrolment growth.

On the post-secondary side over the past four years, the increase in financial commitment has been nearly $200 million, an increase of 19 percent. In comparison, the average across Canada has been a 1.5 percent cut each year. In other provinces, we are seeing curtailment of post-secondary educational opportunities for our young people and for those who need to return to learning. In general, we have maintained our province's budgets for universities, colleges and institutes at 100 percent of last year's levels.

With the cooperation of those institutions, their capacity to serve our students continues to grow. This year we'll be creating 2,900 more spaces for students in our colleges, institutes and universities, partly as a result of some modest additional funding and partly by increasing efficiency and using different and new technology to deliver programs. That's on top of the 7,000 new spaces that were created last year.

As a former college instructor, the other thing I must say I'm very proud of is that again this year, we have frozen tuition for all post-secondary students. Compare this with what other provinces have done in the face of the federal off-load. In Ontario last year, college students faced tuition increases of 15 percent, and university students faced increases of 20 percent. The figures aren't out yet for the coming academic year, but I would anticipate similar increases in tuition. Tuition at British Columbia's colleges and universities is now the lowest in Canada.

We have also said not only that we would keep these fees and tuition low but that we're going to provide better assis-

[ Page 5872 ]

tance for students in our colleges and universities. The student assistance program budget increases 4.6 percent this year, so we are adjusting the system to do a better job of meeting the needs of our lowest-income students. Around 54,000 students will receive some student financial assistance this year, which is a 4 percent increase.

One of the great concerns of students and parents is that they have adequate facilities in which to learn and train. We've invested around $1.7 billion over the past five years in building and upgrading British Columbia's public schools -- the K-to-12 system -- and have spent another $800 million on the post-secondary system. Last September, 22 new schools -- elementary and secondary schools -- opened their doors and added 7,000 spaces for students. We completed eight major capital projects in the post-secondary system.

This year's capital plan includes 40 major projects in school districts and two major post-secondary projects. In total, we expect to create 7,000 more new spaces for students in the K-to-12 system and space to accommodate around 1,000 full-time-equivalents in the post-secondary system. On top of that, we've also asked school districts to make sure they're maintaining adequately the schools that they have now. We are funding 142 minor capital projects to improve safety and transportation services and provide better school access for people living with a disability.

But -- and this is the challenge we face, and I know members opposite have faced it in their own school districts -- in a time of limited resources, we're going to have to find more cost-effective ways to build schools. That's one of the results of our capital review. It identified more than 100 different ways of containing costs. We've applied many of those to the projects we've announced this year and expect to save over $109 million in constructing the 40 projects that have been announced. So we're working with all education partners to make that happen. Our students deserve a quality space in which to study. If we do it smart and do it right, we can provide them more of the spaces they need.

Turning to the skills development part of the ministry, which we're going to begin with this evening, 1997-98 is going to see continued support for this important program. I must say that I'm very pleased to be responsible for what is truly the first education safety net in Canada, I guess I'd call it, the Youth Works and the Welfare to Work programs. They're part of the B.C. Benefits initiative, which is that fundamental restructuring of income assistance. What we've said, particularly to the young people in the Welfare to Work program, is: "We want to work with you to ensure that you have access to a job or to the training and education that will help you secure a job." We want to make sure that our clients enter and stay in the workforce. This is a huge challenge.

In the coming year, we expect 50,000 young people and adults who will receive information kits or information sessions to start their job search. We also expect 61,000 income assistance recipients -- around 40,000 in Youth Works and another 21,000 in Welfare to Work -- will participate in job search and job readiness programs. The budget for these programs in this ministry is $59.85 million -- close to $60 million. As well, we're spending $20 million on a program that received some attention in the Legislature earlier this session: workplace-based training.

A third component here is opportunities for students to earn some money so they continue their learning. Student Summer Works is part of our Guarantee for Youth; it's a part that this ministry is responsible for. The target for 1997 is to create 3,300 summer jobs for students, with emphasis on jobs that are related to future careers that students are pursuing. We'll be providing close to $6 million to reimburse employers for a portion of students' wages.

There are also, of course, a variety of training and adjustment programs in the skills area to help several thousand B.C. workers either retain or retrain for jobs. Our goal as a ministry is to work closely with employees and their employers to assist organizations and employees in adjusting to changes that affect the workforce, to help job-threatened workers keep their jobs, to provide some transition services and assistance for older workers and those who are recently displaced, and also to support the development of job strategies in the key industry sectors -- including some new ones to our economy of film production, fishing, forestry, high-technology and tourism. As a result of these changes funding is going to be at around $3 million for focused services to displaced workers who are entering the workforce through these programs.

Later this session -- I hope not too much later -- we'll also be debating a piece of legislation that fundamentally restructures apprenticeship programs: the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act will manage entry-level training and apprenticeship, designate trades and opportunities, establish and encourage increased industry-based training and establish credentials for apprenticeship and other industrial training -- again, an important initiative. I must say that I think apprenticeship may be a way of training that has a long history; I think it also has a very bright future if we get it right.

Another part of the skills area, vocational rehabilitation services -- VRS -- is responsible for providing British Columbians with disabilities with access to education, training and employment opportunities. On a yearly basis, VRS services some 6,000 British Columbians.

In 1997-98 we're also going to see very significant changes to federal and provincial arrangements that relate to training and employment services. Through negotiations with the federal government on the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons agreement, B.C. is going to seek to improve access and expand training and employment opportunities for people with a disability.

On that note, I am also the minister responsible for disability issues. I'm the only minister so designated by any province in Canada. We have taken some steps to say that these issues are important enough that we ought to charge a minister with overall responsibility for them, even though many of the services for people with a disability are not delivered through this ministry.

About 18 percent of our population have some form of disability. As our population ages, as we age, that percentage will increase. In 1995, as you know, we established the provincial office for disability issues. I believe that it has worked well for the past two years. The strategy recognizes that much of the expertise exists within the community of people with disabilities. Those individuals, along with their families and caregivers and supporters, can help shape public policies that will impact on their quality of life. My responsibility is to ensure that all British Columbians, including those living with a disability, have access to good education, vocational skills and training that will lead to meaningful employment. We're going to be taking some further steps towards that goal in the coming years.

I've spent probably 15 minutes talking about a variety of what I would call programs and then talking about the inputs into those programs -- how many dollars. I see some blue books on the desks of the members opposite. We outline those 

[ Page 5873 ]

dollars in ruinous detail at times. I want to spend at least a little time focusing on what I think is increasingly the concern of parents, students, employers and British Columbians in general, and that is the results that we get from spending nearly $5.5 billion on education, skills and training.

Many of the measures that we have today show that our system is providing British Columbia students with education, with skills, that are really among the best in the world. I'll give you a couple of examples. Last November there was an international assessment of grade 8 students on science and mathematics. It covered 41 countries. Our students, our children, performed better in science than only. . . . We were number two; there was one better than us. In mathematics, I hate to tell you, we were fifth; four did better. That's not bad on a world scale. It says we are among the best.

I'm also very proud of our post-secondary education. Simon Fraser University was rated by Maclean's magazine as the number one comprehensive university in the country. UVic was number one last year. UBC also rated well. Candidly, there are really only two world-class research universities in Canada, and UBC is one of them. I must say that I expect UNBC, in my town, to start showing in that august company in Maclean's survey soon.

In the system that I come from, in the college-institute system, the results are equally impressive. Back in '95 they surveyed graduates of colleges and institutes not to see whether students got As or Bs but whether they got jobs and whether the jobs they got were related to the things we sought to teach them. Of the college graduates, 73 percent said they were employed in jobs directly related to their training; 83 percent said their studies were very or somewhat useful in getting a job.

Another 1995 survey covered 7,600 people who graduated from our universities. This is two years after graduation; they graduated in '93 and this is a '95 survey. And 85 percent found permanent work within two years and said it was as a result of their education. Of the remainder, 15 percent, the vast majority were continuing their education; they were doing still further education. Only a very small number were unemployed.

[7:00]

In Student Summer Works, I said our goal was 3,300 this year. I think we're going to exceed it. Last year our goal was 2,500, and we found jobs for 2,800. I think we'll do equally well this year.

On the apprenticeship level, I think we're finally getting it. Five new film and television apprenticeship programs are being offered this year. Several other new occupations related to the film industry are being considered for apprenticeships. We're working with forest industry partners, so that in the very near future students are going to be able to start training for wood products careers in high school, continuing through to a college or technical institute and, if they want, even on into a university program. So I'm proud of the results.

It's clear that the public demands accountability for education spending at all levels. That's one of the reasons we asked the office of the comptroller general to look at accountability. He released his report on the K-to-12 system in April. It points to a number of ways that this ministry can improve accountability around how school boards spend our education dollar. It generally reinforces the direction we've been moving in. I've been involved in intense discussions of that report with school trustees and others around accountability, roles and responsibilities, to make sure we move forward on the issue of accountability. I intend to continue to press hard on that.

We need to continue to focus not just on the inputs. We're going to spend however many hours these estimates take probably talking largely about dollars in this program or that program, whether it's enough or whether they should be put someplace differently. I hope, hon. members, we spend an equal amount of time talking about what we want out of our educational system, how we measure it and how we demonstrate to the people of our province that we are accountable for delivering on their desire for a high-quality, publicly funded, publicly run education system.

I must say, in conclusion, I have spent most of my life working in the education field. I'm a certified secondary school teacher and have spent some 20 years teaching in colleges and universities, and have served as an administrator and chair of a parent advisory committee and in many other roles. I've taken on the responsibilities of this portfolio in January. I did so with both a lot of pride in being responsible for this system and determination to make sure we maintain public education for ourselves and for our children.

R. Masi: First of all, I would like to, I guess, congratulate the minister on his appointment as Minister of Education, Skills and Training. As a former educator, I feel very comfortable with an educator in that position, because I think there are nuances in the ministry that can only be understood by someone who has been in the business. It is very important that that is there, as a measure of communication and interaction with his officials and with the school system as a whole. So I feel very confident in the position of the minister at this time.

In terms of education, there's probably no other ministry that has the attention or the interest of the public at large -- no other ministry. Sometimes you have absolute support, oftentimes appreciation and, very often, concerns. Concerns are expressed in many different ways. I'm sure the minister has heard them all.

The challenges of education are simply overwhelming. First of all, of course, in British Columbia we have the challenge of growth, which is always on ongoing measure. We have the challenge of new ways of doing things, articulation between the school system and partnerships with business, labour and education itself, in that sort of triad. Of course, as we move into the nineties and the turn of the century, it becomes more and more apparent that it's the way we have to go.

Education has to express new and unique ideas in terms of the delivery system. I think we can do things like amalgamation, but amalgamation itself probably isn't an end. The value that comes from that has to be more than monetary. We have to look at ways of management. Perhaps amalgamation can be the doorway to a whole new way of looking at how our schools are governed.

I'm not the Education critic for K-to-12 or universities -- they will be along later -- but in somewhat of a response to the minister's statements, I certainly appreciate the develop-

[ Page 5874 ]

ment of new universities throughout the province, and new university colleges and new technical universities. It's a great step forward. I certainly appreciate the problem of location. Everyone wants a university and college in their back yard. They can always give you the greatest reasons. You know, we look around the province, and we see the demise of my first university, Notre Dame University in Nelson. You look at it, and it's an ideal town, an ideal location. But how many places can we put a university today? It is probably worth thinking about.

The other problem, of course, is ongoing in skills and training when we look at Youth Works, skills and training, as the young people come through each year. It never stops. There are thousands; another year, there are more thousands that are turned out of the school system. The tap does not close. They're there every year. So our job in terms of developing programs in skills and training will never cease. It's an ongoing challenge. We have to make it better.

In terms of accountability, this is a word, of course, that has sprung into management over the last ten years. I think it was high time we had a report on accountability in the school system. The people want to know what bang they're getting for their buck. We've gone through cycles in schools where evaluation was a dirty word -- you know, we don't test, we don't examine, we don't have standards, and each teacher will do his or her own thing. We came out of that. There's been a gradual climb back up the ladder. We think differently now in terms of the whole approach to education. I'm happy to see that the minister is pursuing that report. While everything in it isn't perfect, there certainly is some direction there for future years.

I think I'll look now at the topic that we're here for tonight: Skills and Training. What I'd like to do is begin with kind of an overview of the ministries -- the Ministry of Education related to Human Resources, Labour, and Children and Families -- and perhaps go on from there to a bit of a discussion on career education, which is not directly under the responsibility of Skills and Training, although it does have a relationship, and then perhaps spend a bit of time on the Mendelson report, which examined the area of Youth Works very carefully. There are some pertinent questions in there. Some of my colleagues will be discussing jobs and youth and perhaps multiculturalism. We may take a run at ITAC, although I had a long discussion with the Minister of Labour on that. So perhaps we can have a quick brush back and a little bit on the old blue books. That should wrap it up.

To begin with, I would like to look at some of the structural and organizational agreements and functions among the ministries. First of all, with the Minister of Education and Minister of Human Resources, just what is the relationship there in regard to responsibility towards Youth Works?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before we begin, I want to introduce the officials who are with me tonight. I think you probably met them in some of the briefings. On my left is Don Avison. He's my deputy minister. On my right is Betty Notar, who is assistant deputy minister in the skills development division. She'll be helping me with the details of your questions this evening. Behind me are Jim Crone, who is assistant deputy minister of management services, and Scott Browning, who is director of corporate services.

There's a very short answer for Youth Works. The Ministry of Human Resources enrols them; all the programming is ours.

R. Masi: Perhaps to move it along a bit, we could discuss the relationships with Education and the Ministry for Children and Families, Labour and Youth -- the Premier's Office.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of relationships. The goal here is a collaboration among ministries towards common outcomes, wherever possible. I'll sketch a few of them. Then the hon. member may wish to explore some of them.

Clearly the Premier has chosen to also be the Minister Responsible for Youth. This ministry works very closely with the Premier's Youth Office on a variety of initiatives: everything from the tuition freeze to Student Summer Works, which is part of the Guarantee for Youth, to. . . . There's a huge range of things that we work with them on. We provided some staff and worked very hard with the Premier's Office in running the second Youth Forum, which occurred back in February.

With the Ministry for Children and Families, there are a variety of relations among us. On B.C. Benefits, of course, the students, who may be taking either post-secondary programs or who might be a Welfare to Work or Youth Works client, could also be receiving the family bonus through the Ministry for Children and Families and associated other benefits: dental and health benefits. In addition, of course, we work very closely with Children and Families on the K-to-12 level. That's not what we're dealing with tonight, but some of the programs that were within this ministry a year ago, such as the inner-city schools program, the school meals program and the child care program, are now the responsibility of the Minister for Children and Families. We work very closely, programmatically, with that ministry and with the school districts that actually deliver the programs.

The last one you mentioned, I think, was the apprenticeship side. We are getting into ITAC, and we'll have lots of opportunity to debate it. Let me say very quickly that what we're attempting to do with Labour is far more work in a coordinated way.

[7:15]

R. Masi: In terms of the structure of the skills development branch, I wonder if we could just examine the qualifications of the counsellors or the professional staff involved -- perhaps the training consultants and the financial assistance workers.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Financial assistance workers are employed by the Ministry of Human Resources, not by this ministry, so I can't speak to the details of their qualifications.

The skills development division employs training consultants. The qualifications are

". . .a minimum of two years experience managing a large caseload in a field related to the delivery of employment and training services, preferably to clients facing multiple barriers to employment, and grade 12 or a diploma in vocational 

[ Page 5875 ]

rehabilitation -- human services, or more preferably. . . ." and preference is given to those holding a degree in one of the social sciences. "Experience using a variety of counselling techniques; [ability to] evaluate client barriers to employment. . .training needs. . .eligibility and suitability for specific programs and services. . . . Preference [is] given to applicants with experience in application and interpretation of legislation" -- because there's a variety of legislation that affects the programs we deliver. And again: "Prefer [those with] working knowledge of programs, resources and labour market conditions which impact employment. . . ."

I'll leave it there, and if there are further questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

R. Masi: Just sort of an outline of the number of offices in British Columbia. . . . To go further with that one question, I'd like to ask: are these combined with Human Resources, or are any other ministries involved in theses offices?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The skills development division is responsible for 60 field offices around the province. Several of those are located in the same physical facility with Human Resources offices, and about five pilot projects are working at a high level of integration. Particularly in some smaller communities, some of those 60 field offices are co-located with the federal offices of HRDC. So you have some co-location there, as well.

As we move towards implementation of our agreement with our federal counterparts on training, we're already beginning to figure out how we can do more integration of the federal and provincial centres that clients would go to for skills training. As you know, that agreement takes full effect in the fall of 1998. So we have about a year and a bit of hard work in front of us. I believe that where possible, particularly in smaller communities, co-location is really of great benefit to the people we are seeking to serve.

R. Masi: I agree totally. I think the idea of having separate offices in small communities is probably wasteful to say the least and confusing, as well. Is the federal partnership based on firm dollars, or is this soft money? I wonder if I could ask the minister about the funding.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The agreement which I signed back in February, along with Pierre Pettigrew -- the federal minister -- and the Premier, is very clear on the dollars that are being transferred for a five-year period. The total for those five years is $1.25 billion, so that's the amount of money we're talking about. It escalates gradually over the five-year period, but it's a quarter of a billion dollars, plus or minus, per year. Some details are still to be negotiated around the transfer of staff from the federal government to the provincial public service. It will take place in the fall of 1998, and negotiations on numbers and costs and how that transfer will take place are ongoing.

R. Masi: I'm glad to hear that it's firm on a five-year basis. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of employment, but it seems to be the federal programs that have a way of coming and going, and so I like the idea of the five-year involvement. However, there is another side to that, too. When you add up the downloading and the infusion of money, I suppose that you have to give a little.

Anyway, on to the next. . . . I'd like to talk a little bit about career education. I know that in the high school system. . . . It doesn't fall exactly in the field of skills development, but I feel that there's a direct relationship. I agree that our academic programs are very well done in British Columbia. I have no problem with how we deliver an academic program. However, I feel that in the school system, career and technical programs are still considered somewhat second-class, and I think we have a lot of work to do there. I do have a concern about the funding for some of the career programs -- career preparation and co-op education. It seems as though a year-by-year variation takes place. We don't have to get into the dollar figures. I'd like to get more into the philosophy of what are we doing in terms of firmly supporting these programs.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his thoughtful comments. If I understand what he's saying, I agree with much of what he has said.

It may be that one of our flaws as educators is that because we found our road to satisfying employment through a university education, we think everybody ought to do it. I think that has been a weakness in the past. I think we need individually and as governments and as organizations to spend a lot more attention providing our children in school with better knowledge of the full range of career opportunities that face them and the full range of educational options that could prepare them for those careers. That's why we instituted the CAPP program a couple years ago. That's why, after we reviewed it this year, we acted on the recommendations of the students themselves, who said: "Improve it, but keep it. It's providing us information that's valuable to us." That's why we've put into place apprenticeship programs at the high school level. I intend to enhance them, so people can actually start training for a vocational or trades career in grade 11. That's why we need to continue to look at the co-op opportunities in both post-secondary and training situations.

I'll just share one experience with the member. The Minister of Employment and Investment and I chaired a. . . . I don't know what to call it -- seminar is too academic, workshop is too training-oriented. We shared a day -- let's put it that way -- last Friday with representatives of the information technology industry and educational institutions, and we heard their concerns and their advice on strategies to address the training needs of their future employees.

One of the firm recommendations -- and this reinforced what I believe -- was that the more we could do in colleges and universities and in training programs to encourage that mixture of theory and practice -- whether we call it practicums or apprenticeships or co-op -- the happier they would be. So they urged us further in the direction that I think this education system has begun to move in the past several years -- toward integration of school and work rather than treating them as two separate realities.

R. Masi: Thank you, minister. I appreciate the words of support for these programs. I probably have to say, though, that there doesn't seem to be that feeling of stability among the career people in the secondary schools that in fact their dollars will be there next year and the year after and the year after that. I understand the difficulties of budgeting; there's no question about the limitations of dollars. But I suppose it's a commitment backed up with some dollars that will be there for. . .much like the federal thing we're talking about, the five-year guaranteed plan. I think that sort of thing would probably go far to institutionalize the concept of career education in the secondary school system. I'm preaching, I think.

Hon. P. Ramsey: To the converted.

[ Page 5876 ]

R. Masi: Right.

On the CAPP program -- career and personal planning -- it's my understanding that there has been some movement in the 30-hour requirement in terms of the content. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We are well into the area of K-to-12 education. I don't have the staff with me tonight. I'll say a few things, and then if you want to come back in, you can.

We had that program reviewed twice in the last year, as I think the member knows: once by some of our educational partners -- teachers, school trustees, parent groups and the like -- and then quite separately and quite deliberately by a group of students who had actually been in the program to get their advice. In many cases, the advice was absolutely identical. One thing we did act on in the work experience was to count a broader range of activities for the work experience. That was a universal recommendation across the piece and was really just to facilitate it happening.

We didn't, however, back off from the 30-hour requirement. I think it is absolutely imperative that we say to our secondary school students that in order to be a graduate, and in order to be well-rounded and to understand where this education they're acquiring is going to be used, they need to have spent at least a minimal amount of time out there where work is done. I am committed to the CAPP program, in spite of the petition that your colleague -- your colleague! -- from Delta South tabled in the Legislature today. Hon. Chair, I have made a grave blunder in naming the member for Delta South.

To conclude, let me just say that you talked about the necessity for demonstrating commitment. One of the things we did in the formula for funding K-to-12 education this year was to act on a recommendation that we increase the per-student funding for career programs. For the past couple of years, it has been at a little over $1,100 per student. For the coming year, '97-98, it's at $1,400 per student. Now, you and I probably both know career instructors in high schools who aren't seeing that funnelled down to them, and that is an issue that remains to be dealt with; but we are committed to this. We have tried to indicate our commitment and the importance we place on career education by adjustments to the funding formula for the '97-98 budgets for school districts.

[7:30]

In terms of timing relative to grades in schools, when would the decision-making time come, in the opinion of the minister, regarding secondary school apprenticeships?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The secondary school apprenticeship program is a two-year program -- grades 11 and 12 -- so the decision point for students is after grade 10. They actually have to apply and be screened for apprenticeship programs starting in grade 11. As you know, they are then in and out of school and spend some time with employers. I recently met with a young man from the East Kootenays, and his parents were very impressed with this program. They said to me what I think the member opposite has probably heard from many parents: "Without this program, our son probably would not have completed secondary school, because he was totally uninterested in the academic unapplied program he was being offered." This program had energized him and led to a very, very successful school completion.

There are currently too few secondary school apprenticeships -- just over 300 in the province -- but clearly, part of the challenge here is to work with employers to have spaces for students to actually carry on, become indentured and complete the apprenticeship. It's no good simply providing the first part of the training in the schools. We have to accelerate our work with employers to provide increased spaces for indentured apprentices.

R. Masi: I appreciate that information. I guess my question was poorly phrased. I see it more as a philosophical or a sales type of operation here, where you would get into the question of pointing younger people toward the value of it rather than just beginning in grade 11. Perhaps I was looking for a program of explanation -- toward parents, essentially.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with the member opposite. Regrettably, I don't have the staff here who can provide me with the details of what information about the apprenticeship program is provided when to secondary students and their parents. The possibility of a trades apprenticeship is one of the options I expect would be presented through the CAPP program to students thinking about future careers. I know that it was to my daughter, who has now just completed grade 11. She started looking at a variety of these things in her CAPP classes in grades 9 and 10.

R. Masi: In terms of secondary school apprenticeships, are we seeing an increase in numbers? You did indicate a number to me, but are there any projections?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The work on planning for the increase in secondary school apprentices will fall to ITAC. They have some budget that I believe can be put toward increasing school apprenticeships. The real challenge, though, is to find placements in the employer community before you start increasing the numbers in school. Otherwise, we're simply creating the start of an apprenticeship program with no ability for the student to complete it. That is the real crunch work that ITAC has to do -- to break down some of those barriers with the employers.

This is actually a more difficult program to attract employers to participate in than conventional apprenticeships, as you may know. For a conventional apprenticeship, once your apprentice is indentured to you and your firm, he or she spends six weeks back in the classroom every year, with a bit of overlap for most apprentices with what would normally be vacation time. It's quite different in secondary school. Essentially the employer has an employee for only two to three months a year, and the rest of the time, the student is in the classroom. It's quite a different sort of relationship.

I hope that as the program expands -- and it has had a fair bit of success so far -- more and more employers will wish to participate in acquiring good, young, trained workers through secondary school apprenticeship programs.

R. Masi: It's my understanding -- and again, we're back to funding for these programs -- that there has been a change in the funding allowance for regional coordinators. I look at this and would have to ask the minister if this is this a positive move in terms of the stability and credibility of the whole apprenticeship program.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What we did was to change the way funding was being delivered rather than reduce the funding. That's how I'd characterize it. What we did was that for the 

[ Page 5877 ]

consortia managers who were running the apprenticeships in various regions, we said: "Our direct budget to you is not going up. In fact, it's going down." We also said to them that if they wished to get additional funds, they should work with the school districts in which they're running secondary school apprenticeships, because they received close to a 25 percent increase in their per-student funding for students in those programs. This has worked. . . . Well, let's be candid here; we're going to spend a long time talking about this. It has worked differently in different areas of the province.

I'll give you two examples. In the West Kootenay it has worked quite well. The consortium has been able to approach the two or three school districts that have been involved there, and the school district has provided some money for some of the liaison-coordination work of the consortium through the secondary schools that actually train apprentices.

In the East Kootenay, on the other hand, that work has not done so well. As a result, the consortium there is facing some severe pressures. I recently met with that consortium and undertook, on their behalf, to write to the school districts involved and point out to them the funding arrangements that I've just described to you, hon. member. I urged them to work with the consortium to give them adequate funding to do the sort of liaison work that I think they perform so well.

R. Masi: I agree. There's no question that sometimes funding on its way to a school board for particular purposes tends to get diverted. We've all been there.

In terms of the apprenticeship scholarship program, I wonder if I could just ask a brief question on the criteria and ask how many we're sitting at today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have the criteria in front of me. The number actually went up this year from 80 to 100, so we put a 25 percent increase on the number of scholarships available in '97-98.

R. Masi: In terms of the apprenticeships and the partnership program. . . . Maybe I should take the capital P out of partnership, here, and just do apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship or school apprenticeship programs, and any partnerships that they may arrange for placement. There seem to be some reservations about union involvement in terms of whether the students are acceptable to the union. This is not a total blank-out, at all, by the unions, but there's some resistance there. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would agree with the member that it is spotty. In some areas the relationship seems to be working well, particularly where you have some very strong consortia that has involved members of the union movement. In other cases the relationship has not worked so well. It's one of the challenges that ITAC is going to have in front of it as it looks at different ways of training and a continuum of training to break down some of those barriers.

I really am quite supportive of the secondary school apprenticeship program. I think we've already recognized in our discussions that there are several barriers to its expansion. I don't see any that can't be overcome, including increased acceptance by unions and union members of this.

Most of the union leadership that I know, particularly in the trades area, recognizes full well that we have an aging population of journeypeople in our trades. These are the sons and daughters that we need to train to be the next generation if we as a province wish to avoid the experience of a generation ago, when we hired many of our trained tradespeople from overseas. I believe that our secondary school apprenticeships are one of the ways that we do that.

I think there is a willingness on the part of the trade union movement to work on these sorts of ventures. Their clear endorsement of the ITAC legislation and this integrated model for proceeding with expanded opportunities for apprenticeship training indicates their commitment to the future of apprenticeship as a means of training the workforce.

R. Masi: I did discuss programs that rely on soft money. I think the minister answered my questions completely on that, so I'll proceed on from there with the hope that the money will become more fixed in upcoming years.

[7:45]

The Ministry of Human Resources contributes $404. The Ministry of Education, Skills and Training had a overage payment. The overage payment in this particular case was $96, I believe, and this has now been discontinued.

This young lady gets a cheque for $879 from the Ministry of Human Resources. She pays $550 a month for rent on a one-bedroom apartment and the rest on groceries and utilities, and she doesn't have the $96 for child care. So her final paragraph here in her letter is somewhat indicative of the situation of a number of students. They did come to see us about it. There were a number of them. She says: "Unless the ministry continues to assist me with my child care expenses, I will not be able to continue my studies. This leaves me unskilled and unable to support my family. It means that I will be reliant on the welfare system." I'll just end there.

Obviously you know the question that's coming up. These young people are in a very awkward situation. They want to get off welfare. Our whole aim with Youth Works, Welfare to Work, is to take them off, yet we get into situations like this. I just wonder if the minister could comment on this.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The problem that the member has identified is part of the, shall I say, transition difficulties as we move from welfare support for low-income people who are seeking a post-secondary education, to supports provided by student financial assistance. I believe that the student whose correspondence you're reading probably fits into this.

A year and a half ago, she would have been a welfare recipient and would have received support from GAIN and other moneys for attending post-secondary education through the Ministry of Human Resources. She received some assistance with child care from the Ministry of Women's Equality at that time and would have received some other funding from the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training of the type you just described, which was called a child care overage payment.

[ Page 5878 ]

That changed about a year ago. We said, as part of B.C. Benefits, that we're attempting to provide the same level of financial assistance and the same child care arrangements to people whether they are working and not in the welfare system at all, whether they were on the welfare system and now are not, or whether they are on it now, in which case we're going to shift the way they're being supported. The shift was to that mixture of grant and loan which comprises student financial assistance. In addition, the young person, whether on GAIN or not, whether on welfare or not -- would receive the family bonus and would receive the child care subsidy. We attempted to say: "Look, we're going to create a level playing field for all."

There were around 900 students who were receiving the overage payments when this first was put into place in the spring of 1996. At that time, in my first stint as Minister of Education, Skills and Training, I asked the ministry to devise a transition period and provide some addition funds so that nobody would be impacted by this change and this loss of overage payment.

That overage payment and that transition funding ended March 31, 1997. The number of recipients had declined to some 325. We believe that the great majority of them are completing their training programs and are not returning to school next fall. There may be a few who are still feeling that the mixture of supports that they receive from financial assistance grants, loans from the family bonus and the child care subsidy does not equal what they had before from slightly different sources. I believe they are roughly equivalent, and I think also that what we're trying as best as we can to do is to adhere to the principle of a level playing field for those who are working and returning to learning, or those who have been on income assistance and are returning to learning.

R. Masi: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I certainly can understand the rationale for a level playing field. It may well be in the area of communication that I have some concerns. The letters to the student were somewhat abrupt. I'll leave it at that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Could I respond briefly? I mean, look -- that's always a difficulty. Actually, I did want to add one thing. We recognized that since this was ending March 31 of this year, there were some who were still in the process of completing an academic year. So we extended this transition period until this August. We think that at that point, of the 300-some who were still receiving this, less than 10 percent will still be affected in the coming year. So we think we've been able to do a transition in a reasonable way.

We also recognize very clearly the need for good information to the recipients. We set up a direct help line for people to call. The other think we did was to call every client -- all 325, individually -- because of the uncertainty that any change in funding arrangements can engender in somebody living that close to subsistence.

R. Masi: I'd like to look at the report here of Mendelson and Associates that came along in September 1996. It sounds somewhat dated, but it has a number of points in it that I'd like to go through. It's essentially on Youth Works, and I'm sure it was well digested by all the deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers and officials, as all these reports are.

I'd just like to run a checklist through it, if I could. I'd like to begin on the. . . . There's a question here on independent job search. I don't know if you have the report there -- page 4. Down at the bottom it indicates the independent job search: ". . .Young persons receive benefits and conduct an independent job search over a seven-month period." I guess I'd have to ask a question about this seven-month period and how it was arrived at. What rationale was used to come up with seven months? And is it too long, or are we right on?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The number was not chosen at random. It was based on a generation of experience -- some 30 years of experience -- in the Ministry of Social Services and its successors. The experience is that within that period -- seven months -- some 60 to 70 percent of welfare recipients get off welfare, essentially unassisted. So it was felt that that was an appropriate period to say: "Right, if approximately two-thirds of the Welfare to Work and Youth Works recipients can, with some assistance -- information on how to do a job search and a few other orientation sessions -- find gainful employment themselves, great." That's what the initial period is for.

R. Masi: I guess my next question here is related to a letter that came from the Nanaimo region John Howard Society. It was directed to the Premier, but I assume it managed its way through the system. The middle paragraph says: "We refer to the need for ex-offenders released from institutions to have immediate access to employment programs, as their rehabilitation and community safety are jeopardized without this support." Would that have any direct bearing on anything that's done in Skills and Training -- on these programs? Are they still subject to the seven-month period of job search, or can they be moved into training?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Currently, if people are on income assistance, the seven months applies, however they got on income assistance.

R. Masi: I'm looking on page 5, "Phase 3 -- Job Readiness ." There's a comment in there: "Typically, needs will include literacy and language needs. . . ." Could the minister comment on any programs that are established in this area for the various ethnic backgrounds?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Skills division contracts with a variety of organizations that deliver training, largely in the field of adult basic education. Some 38 percent of Youth Works and Welfare to Work recipients who are in the job readiness phase are in adult basic education. It sort of bears out the comment in this report that literacy skills are one of the primary needs, as well as job readiness and other skills.

R. Masi: I wonder if the minister could enlighten me as to the scope of the ethnic language programs.

Interjection.

R. Masi: In terms of the variety of ethnic peoples that we have in British Columbia. . . . Maybe I could comment further here, just to bring this out a bit. We often have people coming into our country who have had primarily an agricultural background, possibly with very few skills even in their own language and no English language skills in Canada. We have such a variety. We have Central American -- quite a large component. . . . Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services, for example, has a large component of Central American immigrants. I just wonder about the range of language programs that exist.

[8:00]

[ Page 5879 ]

But I think what the member is referring to is how we help immigrants who may not have a lot of experience in the Canadian workplace with some experience in how to seek, acquire and hold employment. One of the ways we do that is by contracting with organizations such as the Surrey multicultural and immigrant society for provision of exactly that sort of training. They are one of our contractors that deliver service, as in my community, the Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society of Prince George runs a similar program.

R. Masi: I'm looking over the page, on page 6 here, "Legislation and Regulations," talking about the act. It defines youth responsibility as "attending employability or skills development programs if they are referred." We're talking about sanctions here, essentially. Sanctions for non-attendance at training are allowed under the act. I wonder if the minister could comment and explain to me what sanctions are applied.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Withdrawal of benefits.

R. Masi: I wonder if I could ask if any non-attenders actually receive these benefits. Are there any exceptions or exemptions?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, you can be excused from participation, but the range of reasons is relatively limited. If you're fleeing, for instance, an abusive situation, you can get excused from it for up to six months, and similarly if you're dealing with an alcohol and drug problem. I don't think training works very well for those who are dealing with a personal crisis due to alcohol or drug abuse. You can be excused for that reason. Hopefully, you'd also be provided with some services. But other than that, the reasons are few and far between. Essentially, the people we contract with that run the programs have sort of a "Three tries and you're out of here" policy. As we talked about this evening, around 150 recipients have had their benefits revoked because of non-participation.

R. Masi: I'm looking over on page 7 here. This is a related question; it's under "Program Definition." It indicates that Youth Works is not a social program. I think that's what we're talking about at the present time. Access to social services is by referral. I wonder if we could just have a comment about this referral system.

I have some concerns about young people on Granville Street and here in Victoria on Government Street and all over British Columbia. There are young people out there, and they're not in anything. They're not in Youth Works; they're not anywhere. I just have a feeling that somehow there's a gap here. I don't have the answer. I'm asking for a comment on this.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right in looking at one of the problems that is there. I think it's always going to be there. But we were aware of it when we set up B.C. Benefits and established Youth Works. In my opening remarks, I described it as Canada's first educational safety net. That's what it is.

What we've said to young people from 19 to 24 is: "You have a legislative right -- and it's in legislation and in the regulations around B.C. Benefits -- to access jobs. We'll help you. You have a legislated right to access training that will help you get employment. You do not have a legislated right simply to a cheque." If you are employable -- and MHR, which does the intake, is the one that determines that somebody is employable -- therefore you're enrolled in Youth Works. Your choices are job search, assisted job search and a variety of other programs to help you get into the labour force, or student financial assistance and post-secondary training.

What we need to do is constantly increase that threshold of understanding in some of the young people who you're talking about -- I see them too -- that there is assistance in getting and maintaining employment. We want to provide that. But if the decision on the part of the young people is, "No, I don't want that assistance," that is their choice.

I'm not sure what more I can say about it. The help is available. It is a legislated entitlement. We're quite committed to it in a way that says we believe the right place for young people is in the workforce or in training to get into the workforce. I know that when we brought this program in, there was a lot of concern about whether we could actually deliver on that commitment to actually provide enough spaces in enough different programs to follow through on our commitment to youth under Youth Works. So far we have. In some cases we've actually been criticized for at times funding seats that didn't get filled. We're quite determined to have enough spaces to meet the need.

Some youth who have initially resisted this have subsequently enrolled and have really had their lives turned around. Increasingly, I hope this will become part of the culture of young people in our province, that they rely on government -- I don't know who said it -- not for a handout but for a hand up. That's what Youth Works is really all about.

R. Masi: I appreciate that answer. We supported this program in the last session. My question was not meant as a criticism of the program. I think they're doing a fine job. I guess I just have -- I don't know, maybe it's too many years in education -- a concern for young people when I see them out there.

Anyway, to get on a bit here, over on page 8 there's a list of program components for Youth Works, and it's very well laid out. English language training is indicated here on the second frame, and I think we discussed that already. I would just like to ask a general question: are these programs all in place, and are they functioning throughout the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to report the answer is yes.

R. Masi: Let's have a look on page 9 at "Workplace-Based Training," and its implementation. In terms of phase 3 readiness, I'd be interested in discussing this for a minute. It says that the basic inventory of WBT spaces is expected to be in place to meet the training demand. Is this in place now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it is. The targets for the contracts, which were struck I believe in the fall of `96 and ran through March `98, were for some 3,600 places. So far -- here we are in July `97, so we're around halfway through more or less -- 2,646 of those spaces have been filled. We expect to be announcing further and expanded placements for subsequent contracts in the next couple of months. But clearly the spaces are there. We expect to reach agreement on the next set of placement targets by September. We've had five contractors delivering these programs.

[ Page 5880 ]

Now I will take the liberty here, hon. Chair, of addressing what I think may be one of the concerns of the member opposite, which is that not every one of those contractors has a program which is provincewide. But there are workplace-based training opportunities throughout the province through at least one and in most cases two or three of the workplace-based training contractors.

R. Masi: I wonder if the minister could comment on some of the placements, the actual businesses involved in these exercises. Just some examples would be fine.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a variety of opportunities for people in workplace-based training. Destinations is the part of workplace-based training which received some of the unfortunate publicity earlier this session.

R. Masi: I think I heard something about it somewhere.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think you have.

It's expected to place about 1,000 in the tourism industry, and contrary to the reports, they're not all flipping hamburgers. Indeed, many of them are now in junior managerial positions.

As I've travelled the province and looked at some of the opportunities that people have, I've seen a huge variety. I'm not sure that I can say anything other than it seems to reflect the diversity of our economy. I had the pleasure of touring a metal fabricating plant in the Kelowna area that had recently taken on 15 workplace-based training clients, and I think all except one had proven successful in it.

[8:15]

At the time I met her she was wearing steel-toed boots, a hardhat and the biggest smile I've seen in quite some time. She was operating the biggest crane in the place, hoisting dies in and out of a metal press. She had found a career that provided her with both personal satisfaction and a level of income that would simply have been unattainable had she not had this workplace-based experience.

R. Masi: I see further down that there's discussion on program eligibility and exemption. I know we covered this, but there's an interesting comment that 9 percent of the caseload in May '96 was covered by a medical certificate. I just wonder what the criteria are for medical exemption.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The criteria for exemption are actually held by and administered by the Ministry of Human Resources. If you wish, I can get them to send you those eligibility requirements. I'm advised that they've changed in the last year.

R. Masi: In terms of change, is that tighter?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

R. Masi: Looking at program organization and management on page 10, there's an interesting comment here: "The organization and management of Youth Works is complex, because it is delivered by two ministries. . . ." I've always had an interest in. . . . I'll use one of the terms often heard in question period: I'm "perplexed" in terms of why the duality to begin with.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the report is accurate in that it was complex. I think much of the difficulties of management have now been resolved after a year of effort and hard work by both ministries, because we want to work collaboratively with MHR rather than as two stovepipes next to each other.

The real trick here and the reason why two ministries are involved is this. . . . If I am a young person between 19 and 24 and I am unemployed and need assistance and I go into a Human Resources office, there are a number of assessments that need to get done. Am I employable? Am I exempt from Youth Works or training because of a medical condition? Am I disabled? Do I have some other condition? I mean there is a range of assessments and criteria that need to be met.

Once those are met and once it is determined that this client is a candidate for Youth Works, the person then is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. That was done quite deliberately. The reason it was hived off and put over into this ministry -- with the colleges, the K-to-12 system and our universities, rather than where similar programs rested with the old MHR -- was to break that link between. . . .

For young people, it has meant saying: "I'm on welfare." Well, no. They're not on welfare. They're in Youth Works, and they have a right to an education and to assistance with finding employment. It was a very deliberate decision to place it in a separate ministry and to break that link. I think it was a wise decision. As the report points out, there were initially some problems of coordination, but I believe most of those difficulties have now been resolved.

R. Masi: I appreciate the explanation in terms of the duality. I come from somewhat of an administrative background, and I would prefer it totally in Education, Skills and Training, but I understand that there may be some cheque-writing that has to be done from the Ministry of Human Resources. I suppose that for the Education ministry, it's one more job that probably wouldn't be appreciated by the deputy minister. I guess it's a question of evolution, and who knows what the future will bring?

The report does indicate in the last line of that paragraph: "This requires a clear delineation of roles, responsibility and accountability with respect to operational goals and unit functions, as well as effective coordination, tracking and reporting processes." It seems to me that unless these are ironed out. . . . They may well be by now, because this report is somewhat dated, and we have some duplication.

Anyway, to move forward. As we look further down in the report -- and change MSS to Human Resources, I assume 

[ Page 5881 ]

-- it indicates that it is similarly organized with headquarters and field structure. I have to ask the question in terms of that paragraph: has this now been adjusted in reference to the coordination of local Youth Works service delivery, in terms of the readjustment of that statement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me check. You're still referring to the fourth paragraph on page 10?

R. Masi: Yes.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What we have done is formalize the delegation of responsibility with the Ministry of Human Resources in a memorandum of understanding. What the report pointed to is spelled out in ruinous detail, so that each ministry knows precisely what it is doing and where the responsibility of one ends and the other begins.

R. Masi: Looking further on down into program organization, the statement here is: "At a corporate level, the roles and responsibilities of each ministry appear to be understood. . . ." I have to ask the question: have we gone beyond the corporate level?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I think we have gone beyond the corporate level. More importantly, we have coordinated teams around the province that do some of the assessment, compliance checks and whatever between our ministry and MHR. More broadly, I think the divisions are increasingly better understood out there in the employment community, particularly through programs such as workplace-based training.

R. Masi: We're looking at page 12 and there's a comment on the degree of unevenness and uncertainty with regard to the role of the training consultant position. There appears to be a variation among offices as to their planned role and current work activity. Could we have a comment and maybe an update on that situation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier I described to you the qualifications for training consultants. We also have a job description which is uniform for all training consultants. There is still some variation, because in a small office a consultant might do both placement and contract management, whereas in a larger office, there would be different people carrying out those different functions.

R. Masi: In the second paragraph, you talk about the potential role for TCs under Youth Works that represents a change from previous responsibilities. "If so," it goes on to say, "training opportunities should be developed to address these needs." Are these training opportunities implemented? Are they in place?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, they are. Earlier this evening I read to you a list of, I think, half the programs that have now been developed. We have a rather thorough list of training opportunities for TCs.

R. Masi: Further down, under "contract service provider role," I would just ask a question about this, under the second paragraph: "It appears that there will be sufficient staffing levels in field offices to provide service delivery and manage expected client flow demands, assuming no reduction in current staffing levels." Have there been any cuts here?

[8:30]

R. Masi: Over on page 13, there's a comment on the Ministry of Education and the Human Resources joint staff committee, at a certain level. Are these director- and senior-manager-level officials? Is this committee still in place, or is this report somewhat obsolete?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The committee is still operational.

R. Masi: The comment in the report indicates: "In our view, there is an opportunity to strengthen this committee and its work through the inclusion of senior field management staff from both ministries." The minister assures me that the committee is in place. Is it functioning effectively?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It does involve the senior managers in the field so they can work out smoothly the delivery of the program. Those relationships are working well, I think. In addition, we're also establishing a joint committee at the ADM level, a very senior management level, so any broad policy issues -- not implementation and delivery, but policy issues -- can be addressed jointly.

R. Masi: I'm looking at contract management here, on page 14. The second paragraph indicates: "The contract management process has undergone significant change. . . . The changes include the introduction of boilerplate contracts." Could the minister comment on the boilerplate contracts? Have these been implemented?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, in pretty much the last year since this report has been prepared, a lot of work has been done on streamlining contract management, including the development of standardized, or boilerplate, contracts for specific programs that we provide through the Skills division. For example, in readiness training or workplace-based training, very standard contracts specify the expectations of the parties, outcomes expected and other matters.

R. Masi: Further on down, there seems to be some concern in terms of monitoring contracts: ". . .to monitor the compliance and to evaluate their results. . . ." Has this problem indicated by the report been addressed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, and we have new contract management systems in place.

R. Masi: I'd like to move along a little bit here in terms of the training plans and any comments on CTAC and CMAR. I was wondering if these training systems have been completed and implemented.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, both of them have been implemented.

R. Masi: Over on page 16, I believe they're talking about compliance and appeals. In terms of compliance and appeals: ". . .while policy and procedure are being finalized, an accelerated effort is required before October 1, we also conclude" 

[ Page 5882 ]

-- and I think this is the key question -- "that efforts to familiarize staff with this new legislation and regulation should proceed in a timely fashion." I would ask: has this been done, and how?

Hon. P. Ramsey: All staff have received training in joint sessions with Ministry of Human Resources staff, so they're receiving the same information. There are common policy manuals that, again, are in place uniformly.

R. Masi: There's a concern here, indicated in the report in the third paragraph, about regional differences and the diffusion of information. How serious is that? How are the regional differences. . . ? Do we have, in fact, a situation where we have different situations throughout the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There clearly are some differences, because employment opportunities and economies and the culture of communities vary across the province. The programs are fairly standard, but they need to be adapted to meet a variety of needs. There are some differences. Staff share best practices monthly for specific programs, so they are learning from one another in the delivery of these programs.

R. Masi: On page 18 they're talking about service delivery capacity. Again, we're back to the duality here: the system for delivering Youth Works is a joint delivery model by Human Resources and Education. In terms of monitoring compliance, how frequently are the clients checked, and who does the checking?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a common system for recording and monitoring compliance across the two ministries, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. Monitoring of compliance is done monthly. For the first seven months, it's carried out by the Ministry of Human Resources. After that, it's carried out by the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

R. Masi: I'm over on page 19 now. We're moving right along, thankfully. In talking about training spaces here, it indicates that training space is not allocated for every participant expected in phase 3, since this is not necessary. The report states that the program is contracted for about 60 percent of the projected number of clients eligible to enter phase 3. I'm just wondering about this question of capacity. What happens if the ministry has contracted for 60 percent and there are more?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The assumptions that Youth Works was originally designed on seem to have been borne out in practice over the last year and a half. The number of spaces we've contracted for have been adequate for the number of clients referred to them in the various phase 3 programs: ABE, ELT, workplace-based training and the like. In fact, in some programs the difficulty has been the initial purchase of too many seats and concerns about unused spaces, rather than a shortage of spaces.

The other reality that I would point out to the member is that some clients who are in phase 3 are really job-ready. They don't require further training and aren't assessed as needing it. So they continue with assisted job search, rather than entering one of the phase 3 programs.

R. Masi: I'm looking on page 20, and there's a handy little chart. I'm interested in the column "Pre-served." Perhaps I would ask the minister for a definition of pre-served.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that pre-served referred to clients who were already on the system in one program or another when phase 3 kicked in last October.

R. Masi: The jargon. . . . I have the same problem.

Let's move on to page 21. We have indicated here in the second paragraph -- back to the duality again -- that the two ministries, Education and Human Resources, have been aware of the need to deal with the issues of joint responsibilities related here: legislation, policy and related operations. "To manage these issues, an operational committee -- the operational congruence team -- was set up. Further, the cooperative responsibilities will be spelled out as part of the policy manuals of the two ministries." I would ask the minister not to comment on the name, but to comment on whether this has been completed.

[8:45]

R. Masi: On page 22, at the top of the page, an interesting comment states: "However, it is not clear that both ministries share a common vision of their interrelationship at all levels of their respective organizations." I guess this is what sort of underlines my concerns here. "In our view, the executives of the ministries need to work jointly to develop and establish a shared vision of responsibility. Once determined, it should be communicated."

I would ask the minister: first of all, has this shared vision been developed and established? And in turn, has it been communicated?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the short answer is yes, there is a shared vision. It's clear that there's still some overlap that exists. We need to continue to reduce it. I would say that the effort and determination to make sure the vision is shared starts with the ministers. The Minister of Human Resources and myself have held several joint meetings, both one on one and with our senior staff, over the last several months to make sure that the ministries share a common vision and implementation of Youth Works and Welfare to Work programs.

R. Masi: We could turn to compliance in terms of the program. It indicates on page 23: "To maintain ongoing public support, the compliance system must be perceived to be fair by clients." An example here is that the Ministries of Human Resources and Education staff are instructed that their responsibility to a non-compliant client is to attempt to move the person into compliance. I think this is admirable.

I would ask the minister: just how successful has this process been? And do you have any numbers on this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe that that last sentence in the second paragraph is an accurate description of the work that goes on every day in our field offices. Our training consultants write, phone, meet, cajole and do everything possible to move clients into compliance with the program, and so do the contractors that provide the services to Youth Works and Welfare to Work clients.

I think one of the measures of success, perhaps the clearest, is that we've had, I suspect, in the neighbourhood of 

[ Page 5883 ]

60,000 clients since Youth Works was set up. We've had to terminate benefits for 150 of them, as I said earlier. So it's a very small percentage for whom we've actually had to take that step. The operative principle has been to assist people wherever possible to move into compliance.

R. Masi: I would agree with the minister in this case. The percentage there is extremely small, and it's an excellent record.

In the fourth paragraph, there was some concern indicated, I guess, in the report about the staff workload issues arising from compliance exercises. I would ask the minister if. . . . This is always an ongoing problem in any workplace, of course, in terms of workload. I will just ask the question: have there been adjustments, or where are we on that -- seeing as it was indicated in the report?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If I understand the report's comment here, it has to do with the additional workload imposed by asking training consultants to get trained in compliance: how it is expected to be done, and how non-compliance is to be monitored and registered. That training is now complete, so that part of the workload is not there now. In addition, let me again state that we have reduced workloads, which has taken the pressure off staff. In the last year, the Youth Works client load has decreased by 24 percent.

R. Masi: There seems to be a concern in the report about the consistent application of the compliance policy across the province. Again, the report may be somewhat dated, but can the minister give me any evidence to show that there is now consistency?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the answer to the member's question lies in his own comments. This report is nearly a year old now -- 11 months old. Before phase 3 even came into effect in October of 1996, staff advised me that yes, they do believe they have a seamless system for measuring compliance between the two ministries -- a common system for tracking clients and recording compliance.

R. Masi: That's one of the beauties of using a report that's a year old. Everything should be in place by now, and that's why we question. . . . If you question a report that's just been dropped on you, there will be nothing done. My expectation is that the recommendations throughout this report will be implemented and everything will be in place.

In the interest of moving along, I will ask three questions. They may have been answered; if so, we'll accept the short answer here. Have all the regions developed, first of all, a compliance plan? Have these plans been reviewed by senior management? And are these in fact joint Education and Human Resources plans?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, yes and yes.

R. Masi: I'm heartened that the ministry has moved so quickly. On page 24, we have a comment on client communications. It's kind of an interesting paragraph, where the report indicates: ". . .the importance of communicating sensitively to clients, given their possible literacy and language challenges. The tools to be used to communicate with clients need to be relevant, focused and easily comprehended." I would ask the minister: what strategies have been used in terms of special needs people, aboriginals, ethnic groups?

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the reasons why we are able, I think, to report to you this year, addressing many of the concerns raised by this report of last September, is that right after the report came in a work plan was developed to address all the issues that the report identified. This one I would characterize as an ongoing challenge -- a report on some of the work that's been done to date.

One of the things that has been done is that job-search information is now available in five different languages, not only English -- again, sensitivity to clients' needs. We have a generic job-search video that has been created for those with literacy barriers who have difficulty with the largely print packages that were available in the first phase of the project. We have a client brochure that's been developed for self-referral in local programs, and we continue to seek alternative communication vehicles to contact hard-to-reach clients.

R. Masi: Moving along to page 25, talking about "Contract Service Provider Communications," the comment here is: "It appears that there is a need to develop an operational communications plan which will serve to coordinate operational activity such as compliance and appeals." I think we touched on this. I just might ask: in terms of the contract service providers, has this been done?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, this work was done. Once the legislation kicked in, we in the Skills division did have a huge job. Staff are really to be commended for the work they did in conveying the impact of the legislation and the programs to the contractor community and to the client community.

R. Masi: On page 26, the almost final paragraph: "The establishment of a field services unit at [the Education ministry] headquarters has the potential to provide appropriate corporate support and advice to the field operations. . . ." I wonder if the minister could explain to me what a field services unit would look like. Has it been implemented?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must confess that I was initially puzzled by the concept of a field services unit at headquarters. That seemed to be in the range of jumbo shrimp or another oxymoron. The reality is that most of the delivery programs do take place through the 60 offices that I described earlier. There is a small staff here -- it's called the field branch -- within Skills, and it only has two FTEs.

R. Masi: So much for the Mendelson report.

There's a report out of the ministry, Youth Works report 4. Perhaps we could just skim through this. There's a few interesting comments here. We briefly touched on the persons not required to participate in the programs. I asked the question about criteria, and I believe the minister indicated that I would get a list of criteria.

Interjection.

R. Masi: Thank you, minister.

In terms of this paper, the employability and employment-related program benefits. . . . It indicates here that "the following program benefits may be available to participants: up to $100 a month for the cost of transportation and attendance, the costs of tuition, books and supplies for the program."

First of all, I'm a little concerned about "may be." Then I would like to ask how these are delivered to the clients in terms of the methodology of the delivery process.

[ Page 5884 ]

[9:00]

The delivery method for most programs is through the contractor; it's part of the contract. For programs that are run through the post-secondary system, the additional supports are provided by the training consultant.

R. Masi: I guess in reference to the letter from the student -- the mother. . . . Is there any room in there for allowance in a situation like that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is right now. There won't be as of August of this year. That's the end of the transition period for the day care coverage. The same day care subsidy is available for Welfare to Work or Youth Works recipients, as is available to any other low-income British Columbian.

R. Masi: I'm trying. On page 5, I believe, we're talking about appeals and reconsideration. The last line indicates that the appeal benefit must be repaid if the final decision is in favour of the ministry. I would ask how. I have some problems here, in terms of a person in this situation, with that level of income and level of resources, with how an appeal of benefit can be repaid. Maybe I'm off track here. Maybe we're talking about fraud; I'm not sure. Is this enforceable?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope that the member raised this question with the Minister of Human Resources, since it is largely through his ministry that this would occur and that repayment would be required. Most of the appeals in Youth Works programs that we're responsible for have to do with the program that the client was placed in and a desire to be placed in some other program or assisted in some other way.

R. Masi: Section 3 talks about the client follow-up strategy. It indicates that Prince George has been selected, or was selected, to test the intervention follow-up, and the pilot is currently underway. I ask the minister what results have come of this project.

Hon. P. Ramsey: You've gotten down to a level of detail where staff don't have the information in the chamber. We'll be pleased to respond in writing, if you wish.

R. Masi: Yes, I would appreciate that. I'm very interested in follow-up. Further on in section 2 of the same subject field, Victoria was chosen. . . . It indicates here a survey of 50 individuals. I believe it says that the results here are that nine out of 50 are in education or training, and two out of 50 are unemployed. Is this still the case, or is there improvement here? I'm not sure those are results I'd be content with.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll ask staff to provide, in the same letter, some specific response to the Victoria study that you're talking about. We are engaged in tracking 2,000 participants over a five-year period. We are concerned with doing a good longitudinal study to see how things are going. This reports some preliminary results. Of those who started on income assistance in January '96 -- that's about 18 months ago now -- 68 percent were no longer on income assistance by November '96. So that's very similar to what the predictions were. Of those who left, 72 percent are employed, two-thirds of those in full-time jobs.

R. Masi: I thank the minister for that information. On page 6, we talk about harm reduction services for youth. There appears to be a cooperative effort here with the Ministry for Children and Families. It indicates that the Ministry of Education will deliver these services until section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act is proclaimed. Just for my edification, has this been proclaimed or not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That section has not yet been proclaimed, and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training is therefore contracted to deliver harm reduction services on behalf of the Ministry for Children and Families. That includes such things as counselling, shelter assistance, reconnection and similar services.

R. Masi: I guess this refers back to the first question I asked in terms of the responsibilities and the coordination between the ministries.

We've covered workplace-based training to a fair extent. I think I'll move along in terms of this report, unless the minister would like to comment on the success of work-based training. I think he probably has already.

On page 8 there are some statistics that could be somewhat concerning. Again, there's a nice little chart here that indicates a sort of upturn in numbers of single males from October 1996 to January 1997. They call it a small caseload increase of 1.7 percent. I wonder if the minister could comment on the upturn and what factors contribute to this situation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought for a moment that we had located the chart the member is referring to, but we haven't, and therefore staff are unable to advise me of the reasons for the figure the member is quoting.

R. Masi: That's interesting. I've seen this number around in some other charts, too. If I could ask the minister for maybe a general comment on why there would be an upturn.

Hon. P. Ramsey: And the period was?

R. Masi: The period was from October 1996 to January 1997.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll ponder. We don't have a quick answer for you for an uptake of 1.7 percent in a three-month period.

I would report that year over year, from March 1996 to March 1997, the caseload decline in single males on income assistance generally has been 14.3 percent. The decline in single males on the Youth Works caseload has been 27.9 percent.

R. Masi: So I shouldn't be concerned. If it's from year to year, we just have an aberration there.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It looks like an abberation.

R. Masi: I'll accept that.

I think I'll move along, hon. Chair, if you could just give me a second here to rearrange somewhat. I wonder if my colleague could carry on for a minute.

[ Page 5885 ]

V. Anderson: Let me ask a couple of questions just following up on those questions. Has the minister a suggestion for why that decline of 14 percent has taken place in the number of people coming into the program?

Hon. P. Ramsey: They are truly impressive declines. If you look at the overall decline in income assistance from March '96 to March '97, it's a decline of 12.5 percent in caseloads overall. For Youth Works, it's even more remarkable. As I said, there's a 24 percent decrease. So it is quite a remarkable decrease in the number of individuals and families that rely on income assistance over a 12-month period. One of the reasons we're tracking 2,000 clients over a five-year period is to get some firm data on precisely what the member is asking: why? What worked well? Which parts of the program are more effective than others in making this reduction happen?

Clearly some of the measures would be as follows. First there were some measures to reduce the needs of people on income assistance. Things like the family bonus and the Healthy Kids program reduced the need for some families to rely on income assistance as the principal source of revenue for a family. That is probably reflected in the high rates of decline among families with children, particularly two-parent families. With the family bonus, a top-up on income assistance isn't required.

[9:15]

Lastly, of course, we think the programs are effective. We think that the assisted job search has worked. We think that efforts like workplace-based training -- which has placed thousands of clients, 2,500 to date, and counting, in full-time employment without the use of wage subsidies -- has really worked. So program effectiveness, some of the restructuring to the program and increased student financial assistance -- I think all of those contributed to it.

I'll give you one quick survey. The sample is small enough that broadly, it has no statistical validity. We did a survey of 18 clients in the Burnaby area who began Youth Works in January '97 -- just seven months ago. By April, one-third had left assistance. Of these six who left, four are working and two are going to school. So we know where they are. Of those still on assistance, one-third were expecting to move into full-time study or work soon, and the rest were engaged in job search and part-time study. That's a small sample, but I think it does show that the options that are available are the ones that are assisting people in getting into the workforce or into study to prepare them for the workforce.

V. Anderson: I must say, I'm quite interested and impressed by the way the programs seem to be coming together. I'm encouraged -- and perhaps also surprised. That's a good way to be.

When we hear that the rate of youth unemployment is going up so drastically throughout the province. . . . That's why I'm trying to understand how we would hear on one hand that the rate of youth employment is going up, and the Youth Works employment is going the other direction -- for the same age group, really. Is there a comment on what seems to be a disparity, just from what we're hearing?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would surely not wish to quarrel in any way with the assertion that youth unemployment is, and I think will remain for some time, a serious, serious challenge for our society. In an environment where we have been creating more jobs in this province. . . . And I don't wish to get partisan. These debates and these estimates have been relatively free of that this evening. The figures do speak for themselves. We have created a significant number of jobs, close to 225,000 over the last five years. That has helped. Initiatives such as the Guarantee for Youth, with a variety of job opportunities for youth, have helped. Welfare to Work has helped. Welfare to Work. . . .

One of the reasons for the impacts here is that we're dealing, obviously, with a clientele which is most vulnerable, most likely to be unemployed, most likely to need assistance to get into the employment market, into a career, into a self- and family-supporting job. I don't think it's surprising, when you focus the amount of attention and time that we have on some of us who are the most needy, that we would see a significant improvement in employment opportunities.

Even with that, though, it's clear that -- as I think is common knowledge, perhaps even trivial knowledge at this point -- the more education a person or youth has, the better the chance of employment. The less education, the less skill, the less training, then the higher the unemployment rate. That pattern remains true.

While we are, through this program, addressing some of the needs of those who have been the most vulnerable, the most shut out of employment opportunities, it is still a high unemployment rate. We need to redouble our efforts and continue to do the work that we have done in government to have a unified approach to the problem of youth employment and supports for youth across ministries and more broadly, particularly with the employer community, to ask for their assistance in addressing this very serious social problem.

V. Anderson: Unfortunately, I don't have the letter tonight, because I didn't realize we were going to be doing this this evening. But it's a topical. . . . David Dranchuk has a mechanics training program which you may be aware of. He was involved in Picasso Cafe, which is also a training program. Both of those programs were developed particularly for street youths and persons who are coming out of prostitution, as well. They've worked extremely well. Picasso Cafe is working very well, now in large part being run by the people who came to take the training initially. It is an excellent program.

One of the difficulties in the mechanic training program. . . . I've been at the graduations. I've been down at the garage. I've seen the kind of jobs that people went to -- very effective jobs because of the kind of pre-apprenticeship training program they were getting. It was either a six- or a nine-month program, which enabled people to meet the standards which were required.

But I understand that recently the support for people coming into that has been reduced to four months, which doesn't enable them to meet the standards that are required in the full-time program. I wonder if that's something I can delve into further with the minister when I get the details of that or if he knows something about it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The situation that the member describes is not one that sounds familiar, in the way he described it. Let me see if what you're referring to is another facet of this program. As we've discussed earlier, this is a three-phase program in Youth Works, where it's a seven-month, a two-

[ Page 5886 ]

month and then a variety of phase 3 programs. It's nine months before you get in. In some of the initial startups here, the initial period before waiting for a phase 3 program was four months. We are indeed looking at moving to the nine-month for some of those other programs. So that may be what your correspondent is referring to.

The reason for that is to make it congruent with our other phase 3 programs. There may be some reasons why we keep some of these at four months and allow access earlier for some clients. That's surely true of the Picasso program, which is a workplace-based project. Currently, it's four months before you're eligible. So if that's the issue you're referring to, that's the reason why this particular contractor is talking about a change from four months to nine months. It's not the length of the training program; it's the length of the eligibility period. And rather than going from nine to four, it's going from four to nine.

If there's some other problem, I would ask the member to just provide the ministry with the correspondence, and we'll get an answer to you and to your correspondent.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I will get the correspondence to you. It's the other way around. It was a longer program and therefore met the standards. It's been cut back to a shorter program, which means it's not viable in recognition or to give the young people in it the kind of credentials they need when they graduate from it. So I will get the information. It may just have got cut back without the system being aware. I will get that information to you.

I will go briefly to another area. In the area of disabilities, what kind of programs are there? I'm thinking at the moment particularly of persons who are blind or deaf. Are there some programs that are available for persons with those particular needs? And what are the opportunities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll provide a few general comments, and then, if the member has further questions, we'll get into that.

Through vocational rehabilitation services, we provide comprehensive individualized programs to people with a permanent physical or mental disability. We have 25 vocational rehab services consultants in the ministry's Skills division. They're located throughout British Columbia. They're not here in Victoria; they're in our offices across the province. The range of services available includes assessment; career planning; financial assistance; training; restorative technical aids -- very important, of course, for the disability community -- and employment placement assistance. That's provided directly through the ministry to clients. The expected client load in 1997-98 is 2,800.

We also provide a variety of contracted services through various agencies targeted at specific disability groups. You mentioned two that you are interested in. We have a contract with the CNIB in Vancouver to provide vocational assessment, job readiness training and job placement for 98 clients for the coming year and, through the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to provide vocational and education interpreting, vocational assessments, job readiness training and job placement for 184 deaf and hearing-impaired clients. I'm sure the member is also aware that in every community college and institute there are programs and offices in place to assist those with a disability in accessing post-secondary education.

V. Anderson: Along that same line, I was aware of a computer training program that had been developed in Pearson College and Pearson Hospital. It was developed under a federal program, and it was one of the programs that then federally got cut. They were trying to get support from the provincial. It was a very effective program with instructors, and it seemed too bad to me to have it go down and be lost.

Is the minister aware of that kind of program? And has the ministry been able to. . . ? I think it got cut in the transfer. But now, with the new arrangements, is there a possibility that that might be recouped? Because it was a very effective program out of Pearson Hospital, along with G.F. Strong.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In this area -- regrettably, as the member describes -- the federal government has been reducing services targeted at the disabled community. There has been no transfer of funds at this point to the province to take up any slack. We find ourselves simply unable to pick up the programs that the federal government has cut. It is regrettable. I've heard of a number of programs in my community and elsewhere that I would like to see continued. Hopefully, as we move into some better planning and then responsibility for training, we won't have these sudden shifts and sea changes in federal provision of programs which your critic described earlier. But at this point, we are still buffeted about by these tides at times.

B. Penner: It's an honour for me to have a chance to participate in tonight's debates. I was particularly interested with some comments the minister made to deal with Youth Works. I'll get to a specific question in a moment. But I noted the minister's comments about success in creating jobs, particularly for young people.

Not to rain on the parade, but it bears noting some statistics at this point and some relevant information. According to Statistics Canada, the latest information that I have for June 1997, in fact the youth unemployment rate was 16.1 percent in British Columbia, compared to 13.9 percent for the same month last year and 13.6 percent for the same month in 1995. Clearly it shows a trend towards increasing percentages of youth unemployment. More troubling to me is that according to B.C. Stats "Infoline" bulletin, dated June 6, 1997, British Columbia's student unemployment rate is the third-highest in the country, after Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. So that gives me some concern.

[9:30]

The minister mentioned that out of about 60,000 people that have gone through the Youth Works program, only about 150 have been denied or discontinued benefits, terminated because they failed to comply with the various requirements of the program. I'm wondering if the ministry has done any tracking of those 150 individuals to see what has become of them.

I know that at the time this program was introduced, there were some anti-poverty groups that were worried that this type of approach -- that is, cutting people off of benefits -- could lead to increased criminal activity, for example, as people were forced to fend for themselves for any other means of support. I used to work as a lawyer prior to being elected and dealt with a considerable number of young offenders. I too have been wondering just what kind of impact discontinuing benefits to these 150 people would have.

[ Page 5887 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me respond in general to the member's comments about youth unemployment. I don't underestimate the challenge that we face. That's why we need programs to make youth more job-ready, through the income assistance programs that we have. That's why we need to carry on with keeping the barriers to post-secondary education as low as possible by freezing fees and tuition, and other assistance -- increasing student financial assistance. That's why we need to continue to expand post-secondary opportunities by expanding the number of seats in colleges, institutes and universities. That's why we need, at the secondary-school level in the K-to-12 system, to do all we can -- as your critic and I discussed earlier -- to make youth aware of what career possibilities are out there for them and what avenues they need to pursue to become ready with the skills and training that employers need and desire.

I surely do not underestimate the challenge of the problem. I have two children myself that are. . . . Well, one's in the job market, and one is shortly to be in it, completing grade 11 this year. So this is a real problem both on a personal level and in my daily work as minister.

The other question that the member asked was: have we tracked the 150 individuals who have had their Youth Works benefits terminated? The answer is no. One of the big challenges here, of course, concerns privacy issues. Once they are off income assistance, they are no longer registered with the Ministry of Human Resources or ourselves. While we can ask, we cannot require information, so it is very difficult to track these people and ascertain what their lives are like now.

I will say anecdotally that in my own office as an MLA, I have had several people in Prince George -- I think there are two or three, actually -- come and tell me that their son or daughter refused to go along with Youth Works and had been terminated, and in fact, they thanked me. The child was now finding that living at home had its own challenges and its own requirements. Of course, there is other anecdotal evidence that as a result of being cut off, clients have then, at a later date a few months later, chosen to come back and have chosen to comply. They have chosen to get on with the assistance that we are quite willing and eager to give to provide youth opportunities for training and job search.

B. Penner: As an MLA, I haven't yet had anybody come into my office who has been discontinued under the Youth Works program. I'm not sure if I look forward to that occasion, but certainly if it does happen, I will ask what happened and what they are currently up to. I do think it's an area that bears some consideration. I appreciate the privacy concerns. However, I think perhaps a volunteer agency might like to take it upon themselves to find out what is happening to these people. I am concerned that if we do turn. . . . Obviously there have to be rules, but it would be very interesting to us as legislators and from a public policy perspective to find out just what happens to to these individuals when their social assistance is discontinued.

With that, I will turn the questioning over to the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: I just want to follow up on one area that came up earlier in the discussion. In our province, one of the concerns for many young people is the opportunity to get into agriculture or ranching -- those kinds of occupations. Are there any program contractors that are dealing with programs, retraining and opportunities in either ranching or agricultural areas?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you for the question; I'm learning things. Yes, we do indeed have contracts with contractors who are providing training in agricultural fields. There are several up in the Fraser Valley, some in the ranching community in the interior and, I understand, a horticultural one up-Island, here on Vancouver Island. If you're interested, I'd be glad to have staff provide you with the name of the program and some of the training goals.

V. Anderson: Yes, I would be very interested, because I'm aware of the vocational agriculture programs of the University of Saskatchewan. Many young people have come into those programs from the farm and other areas, or even from the city; they have taken those programs and had opportunities that wouldn't be available. They were part-time programs, in effect, which they took during the winter months. They have made a tremendous difference to the lives of a lot of people, so I'd be interested to know more about that. I'm glad to know that that's being developed, because I know that not too long ago there wasn't really anything available in that area.

I would like to move to another area for a few minutes if it's suitable to the minister tonight; if not, we could do it another time. That's the area of multiculturalism, and if I could do that this evening. . . .

As the minister is aware, each ministry is responsible for multicultural programming. The last printed report we have from the government is 1994-95, so I'm wondering if I could get an update as to what's happening in the area of multiculturalism in the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the multiculturalism organization was housed within this ministry at one time, before it was transferred to the Ministry of Attorney General. I have in my hands the 1996-97 Ministry of Education, Skills and Training annual report on multiculturalism, which I believe is a public document, and you're welcome to it. It has a variety of information.

Let me just say in general, though, that this ministry, the people who work in it and the many institutions it funds are intimately involved, day in and day out, with multicultural issues. It's a facet of their life, and it's simply unavoidable. I mean, we have some 70,000 school children who have English as a second language. We have an increasing need to provide services and training for people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. I was discussing earlier with your critic the fact that we now have the information brochures that we provide to Welfare to Work and Youth Works recipients available in five different languages.

This is something that we deal with day in and day out, and it's clear to me that in our classrooms, our colleges and universities and with our clients in the skills area, this is an integral part of the work we do. We modify programs accordingly, and as I know you're aware, we seek through curriculum and other means to promote tolerance and celebration of the multicultural society we enjoy here in British Columbia.

V. Anderson: I would appreciate getting a copy of the action plan. I presume that it covers Education, Skills, Training -- the whole ministry.

I have one question that's related to comments earlier. What about the programs of education in, say, Mandarin and Punjabi? What is the state of development of these particular language programs at this point, both within the public schools and the high schools and then toward university-equivalent?

[ Page 5888 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just wanted to check to make sure that my memory was serving me accurately. The implementation of mandatory-instruction second-language studies in grades 5 to 8 begins in '97 -- this fall. That very significant initiative to really promote language, which is the root of understanding others' cultures and promoting that sort of multiculturalism, begins this fall. At the secondary level, the Punjabi and Mandarin courses are both going to be provincially examined, starting in 1998. So we are very much on the way to saying that these courses and these languages and the cultures that they represent are something that can be studied in our public school system, and they will be subject to instruction with the same rigour that we used to apply to Latin and Greek.

[9:45]

On the mandatory 5 to 8 which would be this fall, so the planning is really underway. . . . If I understand it, and perhaps the minister can explain a little clearer, every school is required to have a second language, and the language may differ from school to school according to the population.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. The actual decision for which languages are available rests with the school district. Obviously they are the ones best suited to assess demand and interest. For the majority of elementary schools, I suspect French will still be the second language that will be available, but the instructional resource packages, the curriculum, are there for other choices and implementation where demand and interest is evident.

The Chair: Member, noting the time. . . .

V. Anderson: Maybe you could answer two questions for tonight. One is: are these courses open to people who already have that language as their first language? Or are they only for people who have them as their second language?

The other question is about the availability of teaching staff in, say, Mandarin or Punjabi. Are those the only two languages that are available, or are there others recognized, as well?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asks about the availability of teachers for Mandarin and Punjabi. Currently, I think a variety of school districts are engaged in cross-Canada searches for qualified teachers. Teachers will have to be subject to the same certification as teachers in any other subject, and they will be certified by the College of Teachers of B.C.

The member also asked whether other languages were available at the secondary level. The answer is yes. Japanese is available in many secondary schools in our province now, as well as more traditionally offered European languages -- French, German, Spanish, Russian, etc. There's a wide range of languages available and examinable in our secondary school system.

With that, hon. Chair, and noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:49 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada