(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 7, Number 6
Part 2
[ Page 6237 ]
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: For the information of the House, I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, where we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In the main House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 52.
VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
On section 1.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 1, in the proposed section 193D(11) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "the date this section received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "July 11, 1997".]Amendment approved.
Section 1 as amended approved.
On section 2.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 2, in the proposed section 523D(11.1) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "must deducted" and substituting "must be deducted".]R. Coleman: I wonder if the minister could explain the amendment to me, just briefly.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The amendment is required to correct a grammatical error in proposed subsection (11.1) of the Vancouver Charter, section 523D, by adding the missing word "be" into the phrase.
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
On section 3.
R. Coleman: With regard to section 3, it is broken into section 3(a) through to section 3(m), and I do have some questions with regard to these sections, just quickly to the minister. First of all, on section 3(b), which allows for all or part of a building to be designated for SROs
Hon. M. Farnworth: Just so we can clarify exactly where we are in the bill
R. Coleman: I guess that's my confusion. I was reading it a bit differently than the minister was, and I wonder if we could deal with a couple of these subsections -- if he would give me leave to deal with that in committee. I guess this bill actually has two sections, and basically I broke it out by subsection.
[6:45]
The Chair: By leave, we would then revisit section 1.Leave granted.
On section 1.
R. Coleman: Again, I'm really pleased to show my brilliance to this House as far as the reading of legislation in this regard. I guess what I'd like to do, then, is deal with section 1, subsection 193D(3) -- basically subsection (3)(b).
In my opinion, (3)(b) allows for the splitting of a building, and I have concerns about the management of that particular building in a split format. I'm wondering what direction we're planning to give to the city of Vancouver for how they're going to deal with that difficulty.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The idea is to give the city some flexibility in protecting stock, particularly in dealing with specific buildings where there's a mix of units. So you may have a building, for example, that may have 25 percent SRO, and the rest is for another use. This deals with that situation.
R. Coleman: I will just put on the record my concern over that split, because I don't think it's a technical discussion that you and I can have, hon. minister, and actually solve here tonight.
I'd like to go on to subsection (3)(c), which requires the posting of the building with SRO designation. I have presented the Clerk with an amendment to subsection (3)(c). The amendment would be by adding the following to the end of subsection (3)(c): "and such designation to be registered as a restrictive covenant on titles."
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the problem I have with this particular amendment is that this isn't how the city of Vancouver envisages dealing with this particular issue. The idea is to give them a tool, and by requiring a registry of the SRO designation on the title, you're sort of tying their hands in a way that they don't envisage. What they're wanting to do is to say
[ Page 6238 ]
R. Coleman: I'd like to speak to my amendment for just a minute, please. I disagree with the minister's take on this, because I think that we're setting a precedent for how we're going to deal with single-room-occupancy accommodation elsewhere, as well as what we're going to try to deal with in the city of Vancouver.
I think the restriction on title is actually not something that burdens the city, but actually burdens the property owner as far as identifying that the single-room occupancy is protected on that particular site. So if the building ever gets sold, that shows up on title and actually clarifies the use of the building as a single-room occupancy and protects that stock in the long term on title. That's the reason for the amendment.
I don't think I need to describe it in any more depth than that, because we dealt with that in my remarks in second reading. I feel it's important that rather than having a loose designation by posting it on a building in the city of Vancouver or anywhere else, I would rather see a restriction put on identifying the use so that all people who are involved in the purchase, management or transfer of that particular property from here on in are aware of the fact that it is SRO and that it has that designation. Therefore it can't slip through the cracks.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying. The problem I have is that we've had a request from the city of Vancouver for a particular amendment to deal with the problem around SROs. The approach the city wants to take -- and the approach that I agree with -- is they want to have a dialogue and a discussion and then determine for themselves the best way to implement the bylaw.
Two areas have been raised as concerns. One is around the issue of property rights and the problem you have in terms of freezing, in time, the SROs as they currently exist. My concern is that by applying a designation to the title, you are going to accomplish that, where what you're looking to be able to do is recognize that change is going to happen. The city of Vancouver recognizes that. The downtown east side and south Granville recognize that they're the areas under greatest threat.
What you want to do is be able to manage that and then to say that if there are changes taking place, maybe some areas will stay the way they are for the foreseeable future or be upgraded or what have you, and other buildings may be converted to another use. The same numbers of units are still there, but they may be an SRO or they may not be an SRO. While I recognize what the member is trying to do with the amendment, I think the better way is to give the city of Vancouver the flexibility it requires to deal with the issue, looking at it from their perspective.
Amendment negatived.
R. Coleman: I understand what the minister just said, and I accept the fact the amendment doesn't pass. However, as we go through this we'll find that a restriction on title would have been no different if it had been done in a conversion in the bylaw. They could have removed that from title whenever they did a conversion. It just would have had better control.
I'd like to now deal with my amendment to subsection (5)(b). I move that amendment as you have it.
[SECTION 1, by amending section 193D, adding at the conclusion of subsection (5)(b) the following: "such accommodations to be single room occupancy units."]On the amendment.
R. Coleman: There are two amendments that deal with this, with regards to another one that I'll be putting under (5)(d). The reason for the amendment is very clear. This legislation, although we're going to get the same comment with regards to the bylaw, is the responsibility of the city. They are going to make their descriptions so that is clarified that we're dealing with SROs, that we want to replace the SROs and that they will be replaced by SROs. The reason I say that is because if we get into a situation where we're not replacing existing housing stock with comparable stock, we will not have enough stock to replace the stock that we lose.
That clarification for the city, which they can do within their bylaws with regards to their definition of what an SRO is -- which I have provided in another section, in another amendment -- would allow them to have their definition but would clarify it from our standpoint. Then when we start to allow for conversions and we restrict this, we're going to make sure that the stock is replaced by affordable stock and that the funds don't go away somewhere and end up not replacing the type of stock that we want it replaced by.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I draw the member's attention to the wording of subsection (5)(b), and it states: "
In terms of what he said about money being paid out and then being replaced, does it have to go into housing? Yes, it does. That's addressed later on in another section of the bill. In terms of the type of accommodation that you're looking at replacing, in fact, section 5 adequately covers that. The problem with the member's amendment is that it's too restricting, and I don't think that's a situation that we want to get into.
Amendment negatived.
R. Coleman: I have another amendment to section 193D, adding at the conclusion of subsection (5)(d) the following: "such replacement funds to be utilized to construct a minimum single-room occupancy unit containing a sleeping area and one full bath."
On the amendment.
R. Coleman: With regards to this particular amendment, I accept that in 5(b) there was a reference to comparable accommodation. In this particular section, because we're dealing with a provision to replace the accommodation to be converted, we should at least identify what the minimum standard of that replacement is within this section, because those funds are going to go out to do that. I felt it was important that we identify that by identifying what a minimum SRO is. I realize there could be an expansion to that to include a small kitchenette or whatever the case may be.
My real concern with this legislation is that although it's going to a bylaw in Vancouver, that bylaw has to reflect the needs of the community with regards to replacement of the
[ Page 6239 ]
single-room occupancies and the utilization of funds whenever we demolish a single-room occupancy. That's the reason for the amendment.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I would argue that the section adequately deals with what the member is trying to accomplish, and in fact, that and section 8 require replacement by comparable housing or comparable accommodation -- comparable or better. We recognize that the bill deals with SROs.
The city of Vancouver is looking at this from the point of view of protecting the existing stock. The money has to be dedicated to that, but at the same time I don't think that we should be completely fettering the options of the city of Vancouver. They should recognize that there's a type of stock
But having said that, if conversion or demolition takes place, it may be more appropriate to have a mix of SROs and some other types of units, depending on the needs of the community, on what it is you're trying to accomplish on a particular site. You may require more appropriate housing or units that may require more than what the member is proposing in the amendment.
What we have to recognize is that the role of the city of Vancouver in all this is to be able to respond to the needs of the community, to respond to the needs in a particular neighbourhood and to recognize that to do that they need, I believe, flexibility -- the ability to look at a wide range of options. So I'm reluctant to look at putting constraints on them.
[7:00]
Amendment negatived.On section 1 as amended.
R. Coleman: On section 1, section 193D(11) of the act
I have concerns about that relative to what the minister said earlier with regards to the registration of title. The same argument applies here, that when you say registration of title it's like putting it in stone, and it's there forever. We're doing the same thing with this by designating it back to first reading.
My concern is that this creates a certain level of uncertainty in a marketplace with regards to people who presently own land in the city of Vancouver, because we've effectively done a form of expropriation on their property by saying it's retroactive to first reading here.
Knowing the city of Vancouver, I don't know how long it will take for them to actually bring their bylaw forward, go through the public process, have that public process complete, go through first, second, third and finally fourth reading of the bylaw. All the time that's going on, this retroactivity to first reading could take place.
We could have people that are presently owning property in the city of Vancouver today who are retroactive
The Chair: Before the minister speaks, I'd just like to remind members that we did deal with subsection (11) and the amendment. It was in fact adopted and accepted by the committee. So on section 1 as previously amended, the minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying, and I understand his argument. I guess I want to raise a number of points. First, in terms of where the city's at in how they feel the bylaw is progressing, the city of Vancouver has done a great deal of work already. Their timetable is to try to have a bylaw done as quickly as possible with the passage of this legislation. In fact, they're looking at this fall.
This section is not mandatory. Again, it is allowing the city of Vancouver flexibility. It is allowing them, if they wish, to go back to the date of introduction. It sends a signal that if there were to be a massive wave or run on demolition permits for particular buildings, the city has some control. It's not intended to be a catch-all hammer that applies to everything. What it is, again, is a tool to the city of Vancouver so that they can deal with the particular problem if it so arises.
My sense from what's happened to date is that I don't think that's going to happen. The interest and discussion around this bill has been out in the community for some time. There have been presentations to council. Council voted on the request for the province to bring forward this piece of legislation. The province indicated in discussions with the city that with the request coming forward, the province would look favourably upon it.
In fact, I'm aware of two particular establishments that have tried to get around the bylaw. Given the literally, I think, 7,500 SRO units in Vancouver, the fact that there have been two gives me some comfort that there is not a massive run taking place and that what we are doing is giving the city of Vancouver maximum flexibility to deal with an issue in a format they've said they want to deal with.
It's a format that I, as minister, am comfortable with. It's a format that has allowed for maximum consultation, for the ability to hear from the development community, from hotel owners, from the people in the neighbourhood and the neighbourhoods affected, and for the city of Vancouver to make a decision on a bylaw accordingly.
R. Coleman: I still want to deal with section 193D(11). I have some other questions with regards to it. I'm assuming that this section is a transitional section to allow for the transition from the time we talk about SROs to the bylaw. Well, it would be an apt description to say that they may be able to go back to stop a problem if there's some bleeding in the SROs, where people want to get out before the legislation went through. That's what this was supposed to do.
My concern is
My caution here would be that if this sits on the books for a lengthy period of time, the retroactivity sits there for as long
[ Page 6240 ]
as they possibly want it. They have the ability to go back -- may go back -- to the first reading of this legislation at any time in the number of years to come. If for some reason there's not the political will
The discussion has taken place, that the bylaw is supposed to come forward this fall. But there may be, in my understanding, some difficulty with that for members of the elected side of the city of Vancouver -- with the time frame.
My concern is that we put this sunset date, or whatever you want to call it, on the legislation. At the same time, we could end up two or three years from now in a similar situation, where we still haven't addressed the retroactive rent reviews on manufactured home parks back five or six years. I'm very concerned that the bylaw doesn't go forward and that we have this sitting in legislation -- that at any time somebody may go back a number of years to the first reading of this legislation to make something retroactive.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I've a couple of points. One, I think there is considerable will on behalf of the city of Vancouver. The fact is that they voted to pass a resolution at council, requesting that the province give them the power to regulate the demolition and conversion of SRO units. So in that sense, that sends a very strong signal to the province that there is political will there. Having sat on a council myself, I know -- particularly around an issue that can be controversial, and I know that in certain quarters this is controversial -- that unless a council is committed to doing it, it's highly unlikely that the council would ask or request that the province give them powers, if they weren't prepared to use them.
On the issue of retroactivity, I guess the biggest advantage of it is the fact that it allows the net to be cast as wide as possible at the beginning, to recognize that if you have a clearly defined date, then you can look at where particular properties were on that particular day. You can see
That's all it is. It's a power that allows the city to address a transitional period. My sense is, given the importance of the issue in Vancouver, given the recognition by the council in Vancouver that these particular neighbourhoods
I would argue that the city has to move quickly, because it has almost a convergence of public pressure to recognize the importance of SRO housing stock and to do something in the downtown east side. A community that's organizing along that basis, along with developmental pressure from the fact that there's interest in the development industry in the potential for both these areas, for different reasons
R. Coleman: Well, let's hope that they do, so that this doesn't become a problem like we have had in another area of the housing industry. I think it's important to realize that that would be the problem we're going to create. We could literally be going back without the bylaw and saying: "Now we're going to designate a series of SROs." It's unfortunate that the designation, as to which ones were SRO buildings, wasn't in place in advance of this legislation. If the bylaw doesn't go ahead, we're not going to have a designation of them; and if they don't move quickly, we're going to have a long gap in there where there's going to be, I'm sure, some major legal wrangling or some issues with regard to property rights of the people that have these particular properties.
Section 1 as amended approved.
The Chair: Section 2 has been dealt with.
Section 3 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 52, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?
Hon. M. Farnworth: With leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 52, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 51.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997
(second reading)
[7:15]
The first amendment is to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act and is intended to provide that where the child, youth and family advocate, in performing his or her duties, identifies a conflict of interest between a child or youth and an adult family member, the advocate must give precedence to and promote the child's or youth's interests over those of the adult family member. This amendment responds to recommendations in the report of the Gove inquiry into child protection and from the child, youth and family advocate. This amendment clarifies the mandate of the child, youth and family advocate relating to children and youth and is consistent with the commitment of government that the interests of children and youth must be of primary consideration.[ Page 6241 ]
There are several amendments to the Company Act, which the Minister of Finance will discuss in more detail in committee, and I will not comment on those since they are sometimes beyond my comprehension. It's late in the evening, and I don't feel very intelligent.
Last November the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that funding for secondary highways would be terminated in order to help the government achieve its goal of reducing debt and protecting health care and education. These amendments to the Highway Act follow through on that announcement. The legislation removes the definition of secondary highways from the Highway Act and the procedure through which secondary highways are established. As a result of this legislation, there will no longer be any secondary highways in British Columbia.
The legislation also removes the provisions which apportioned construction and maintenance costs. This means the ministry will no longer be responsible for providing funding assistance for secondary highways. This action demonstrates the government's commitment to reducing debt and protecting health care and education.
The government is minimizing the impact on municipalities through equalization and community protection grants. These grants ensure that funding to municipalities is distributed in a fair and equitable manner and that there is no net impact on communities with a population of less than 5,000.
Amendments to the Creston Valley Wildlife Act are consequential to the Highway Act amendments.
The next amendment is an administrative change to the B.C. Ferry Corporation Act, to increase B.C. Ferries' borrowing authority from the present $730 million to $975 million. Increasing the borrowing limit is an investment in British Columbia's future which will allow the corporation to carry out required fleet improvements. As the provincial population increases and demands on the ferry system increase, it is necessary to build for the future. As well, ships and terminals age and require maintenance, refurbishment and eventually replacement. Twenty-one of the 40 vessels in the current fleet are 30 or more years old. Most of these vessels will have to be replaced over the next ten years.
The investments mean improved service for customers and more efficient operations for B.C. Ferries. This new debt will not be paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia. Instead it will be paid back over the lifetime of the new assets by the revenues that they generate. Hundreds of good family-supporting jobs will be created through these investments in transportation infrastructure.
Amendments to the BC Forest Renewal Act are technical amendments to the law governing the portion of total stumpage revenues flowing to Forest Renewal B.C. The ministry is considering changes to the stumpage system to make it more sensitive to the market value of pulp logs. If a change to the stumpage formula is made before January 1, 1998, this amendment allows revenues to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to be maintained. The change must be introduced during the current legislative session to permit stumpage changes to be considered later in the year, and it will only be used if changes are made.
Amendments to the Insurance Corporation Act, the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act and the Motor Vehicle Act will enable ICBC to maintain its records in the most efficient and accurate manner. ICBC has always had the power to certify records. Technology is now providing accurate storage for records, and ICBC wants to use that technological format. This legislation will allow ICBC to destroy documents, such as those kept in brokers' offices and on microfiche, and ensures accessibility to copies of records in an intelligible format. Not only will this legislation keep the corporation in step with technology, it will be a cost-saving measure through the reduction of sorting, filing and storage of paper records. The second amendment for this legislation to the Insurance Corporation Act, to transfer the power to set remuneration of the directors of ICBC from the board of the corporation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is consistent with other corporations in British Columbia in allowing for better accountability to the people of this province.
This bill also amends the Land Tax Deferment Act to restore equity of access to the tax deferment program among disabled homeowners. This amendment is needed to nullify a 1997 consequential amendment to the act that would have denied tax deferment benefits to bona fide disabled homeowners who do not receive a disability allowance or benefit from the province.
In its recent management review of the Legal Services Society, the auditor general recommended that "the government review the current system of governance of the society and develop a model that best reflects both the government's responsibilities and the degree of independence required by the society." The establishment of the trustee provision accomplishes this balance of accountability and independence. This is a provision not to be used lightly, but to be invoked temporarily if the board were to resign or be unable to manage LSS affairs properly. I would like to stress that the inclusion of this provision is in no way a reflection of a lack of confidence in the LSS board. In fact, the board has recently undertaken some very difficult decisions regarding its budget and has done so in a very responsible manner.
In addition, the bill makes amendments to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act and the Constitution Act to enable the changes in the MLA compensation which were announced in April. These changes acted on the recommendations made by the Citizens' Panel on MLA compensation in its February 1997 report.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I did mention the Pension Act -- definitely, yes.
This bill provides legislative authority for several amendments to the Teaching Profession Act. It will provide the College of Teachers of B.C. jurisdiction to discipline former members who do not hold a certificate of qualification. Currently, the college only has jurisdiction over former members who retain a certificate of qualification. It will also permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to approve amendments to the number and names of the zones of the province from which members of the governing council of the College of Teachers are to be elected. As the members are aware, last December the number of school districts in the province was reduced from 75 to 59. Thirty-one of the districts listed in the existing schedule of the Teaching Profession Act no longer exist, and 15 new school districts were created.
The amendment will enable the college to conduct its elections and ensure equitable membership representation across the province. It will clarify that the College of Teachers can investigate the conduct or competence of a member when a report of disciplinary action of the members has been made
[ Page 6242 ]
to the college by a school board, provided that any grievance filed respecting that disciplinary action has been concluded first. Finally, it will replace a reference to "Deputy Attorney General" with "minister" in the provision requiring the college to file its bylaws. Hon. Speaker, that concludes my remarks.
G. Plant: I'm pleased to rise to speak on Bill 51, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997. The Attorney General has very helpfully outlined the range of issues which it encompasses. A number of those issues will require scrutiny in the committee stage debate of this bill, and I think that is the appropriate place -- and in fact is the time-honoured place in which to have that examination. I look forward to it, and I'm sure all members do. Those are my remarks.
J. Weisgerber: A miscellaneous bill obviously doesn't get much debate in second reading. The procedures in this House are to allow it to move forward to committee and then deal with it section by section. I must say I feel obliged to at least comment generally on the bill. I suggest that there are changes to the Company Act that appear very well received by those people affected by it, and I certainly have no difficulty in supporting those sections of the bill.
On the other hand, as I see the debt of the Ferry Corporation rise from about $150 million -- when I left the government side of the benches -- to somewhere in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars today, one has to wonder what's happening over at the Ferry Corporation. We certainly will have an opportunity to look at that in much greater detail. The minister here sees things somewhat differently, and it wouldn't be the first time that we disagreed on interpretations and figures.
There are some amendments to the Highway Act that I believe should give great concern to communities who now find themselves accepting some obligations for responsibility for roadways and highways. Again, I think the appropriate time for us to look at that is in committee stage of the bill.
As I think one or two people over the last 12 hours have noted, there are some changes to the pensions that are enjoyed or not enjoyed by members of this assembly. Let me say that I believe those changes clearly reflect the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel. When I look at the Citizens' Panel report and at the effect of the sections in Bill 51 that deal in that area, it seems to me that the members of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee found the way to deal with these recommendations in much the same way as that committee has dealt with the body of recommendations made by the Citizens' Panel.
I don't know whether we're going to have an opportunity to debate this at any great length; there may be no particular will to. But as 75 legislators in this assembly, the decision was made, and I think properly so, that we would take this matter of compensation out of our own hands and go outside -- get a group of people from across society. The parties were privy to making recommendations for appointments, and they did that. The recommendations came back. Some of them we liked, obviously; some of them were doubtful. I mean, I had some real questions about changing the tax-free status. In retrospect, I think it was a very positive move. I think the fact that MLAs now find their salaries taxed as all other British Columbians do makes us far more cognizant of how high taxes are, and makes us much more sensitive to government spending.
There were a whole number of things that this committee talked about. One of them said that there is a great inequity between those people elected in 1986 -- among whom I count myself fortunate to be -- those who were elected in 1991 and those elected in 1996. Having made a number of other recommendations, they suggested that the committee deal with that perceived inequity. I'll say no more other than that I believe the amendments to Bill 51 in that respect deal rather admirably and rather fairly with the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel.
[7:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise in support of Bill 51. Miscellaneous statutes amendment acts are always very interesting to engage in in debate.An Hon. Member: There are no principles.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, sometimes we say that there are no principles involved; at some points there are principles involved.
For instance, I am very pleased to be able to rise and say that we've amended the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, which is very close to my heart, being the minister who introduced this legislation a couple of years ago. The legislation here again confirms our government's commitment to the interests of the child being absolutely paramount. So while it seems almost a technical amendment, it really isn't. It's clarifying once again the ability of the child advocates. At the end of the day, if there are conflicting interests, the child's interest is paramount.
The other area that I'd like to address is the amendment to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act and the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. I do this only to say that as MLAs and as people in public office, we are under close scrutiny all the time. It is sometimes difficult to manage that close scrutiny and to ensure that fairness and balance is there. We are paid by taxpayers and we do our duties in the public interest, but at the same time we know that we have to manage our families. We have to support families, and we have to make sure that our children's future is looked after as well. Sometimes I personally feel the test is higher for us as MLAs, but you know, in truth it isn't any higher. The test is not higher for us as MLAs. I think all public employees have to be under very close scrutiny about how tax dollars are spent. For instance, our government introduced a piece of legislation very recently that talks about severance for executives that are paid in the broader public sector, and we made a very high test in that area.
So in this area I just want to say a couple of things. In the last parliament, under the leadership of the previous Premier, the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Michael Harcourt, our government made a decision to end the pension plan for MLAs. We did that. We said that as of the end of the last parliament, the pension is gone. And the pension is gone.
In the context of that, we also said we made a commitment -- and it was supported by the Leader of the Opposition of the day -- that perhaps someone other than people sitting in this chamber should determine what our salaries, our benefits and our pensions should be. We all agreed that we should put that out to a panel of ordinary people, ordinary citizens.
Frankly, I think all of my colleagues in this chamber are ordinary people. I think that I join with a group of MLAs who represent a broad spectrum of life, and I value the experience that the MLAs bring to this chamber very much. Each and every day an MLA rises in this chamber, I get the benefit of the past experience and the personal experience of that MLA.
[ Page 6243 ]
Nevertheless, we thought it would be better if we had people who were not from this chamber to determine what our salaries, wages and compensations should be. So a citizens' panel was struck. They spent a lot of time determining that, and they came to several recommendations.
What this legislation does is enforce the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel, because of course, under the Constitution Act, all members in this House have to make sure that whatever compensation we receive has some legislative authority attached to it. I agree with the very high standard attached to that.
Then we come to how we deal with the issue around the pensions that we killed -- actually, the pension plan that was in existence prior to 1996. As of June 19, we put a bullet to the head of the pension plan and said it was dead. But there was still a group of people who were eligible and were covered by that pension plan. That's not unusual; there are many employers that face that situation. The Citizens' Panel said that you have to make the situation equitable for people who are eligible for a pension plan from 1991 to 1996. That's what this legislation does.
I must tell you that the process by which we arrived at this legislation was one that was reached by all-party consensus. We spent a lot of time ensuring that we were only maintaining the status quo until the pension was killed. We spent a lot of time -- all parties and committees -- saying: "We want to live up to the pension, to the Citizens' Panel recommendation; we do not want to go beyond what the legislation said in killing the pension in June of 1996; and we want to make sure that it's only equity we bring and not an advantage." MLAs from all parties discussed that matter, and they reached the conclusion that this legislation is the most modest, conservative approach we could take to bringing about fairness and not bringing about a benefit. That's what this legislation does.
I hope, in a way -- maybe I'm too hopeful -- that the public understands that by us killing our own pension for future MLAs and for our families, quite frankly, we have brought a very modest modicum of fairness to those who are eligible for the pension from 1991 to 1996. So I rise in support of it, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General's comments will close the debate.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously I have spoken on this before. I have not much more to say than what I have said. I now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 51, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 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.
B. Penner: On a point of order. With respect to Bill 51, I just seek clarification that that will be recorded as on division.
The Speaker: Yes, indeed. For your information, member, when somebody says "on division," it will be automatically recorded as such.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 28.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977
(continued)
On section 5 (continued).
C. Hansen: Actually, what I'd like to do is defer to my colleague from Shuswap initially. Hon. Chair, I wasn't sure exactly which section you were going to call first for debate, but I'll let my colleague pursue this particular section first.
G. Abbott: I believe that we canvassed a fair bit of the content of section 5 the last time we met. It seems like a long time ago that we adjourned discussion of this particular one. I don't recall, but I don't believe that we discussed section 5, section 4(4), which reads: "Members of a board may receive reimbursement for prescribed expenses necessarily incurred while discharging their duties as members of the board."
I know that this has been something of an issue with the new North Okanagan-Shuswap regional health board -- how and where and how much they will be reimbursed for their expenses. Could the minister advise what guidance is being provided to regional health boards with respect to their reimbursement of prescribed expenses?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we did discuss this, and currently it's travel, accommodation, child care expenses, etc. I had informed the House that the matter about whether there should be any -- and of what nature -- further compensation beyond that was put to the newly created provincial health association. They are going to make recommendations to me on what, if any, changes should be made to that policy.
C. Hansen: I just want clarification from the minister with regard to (2)(a), when they talk about the voting members of the board. I want clarification as to whether or not an employee of the ministry could be appointed as a voting member under this section.
[7:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.S. Hawkins: I think this was brought up before, and I just want to mention it again. I don't think I spoke to this section during the bill, but I know I did during estimates.
The minister knows very well that communities across the province spoke against her appointing boards. I just want to remind her, because the public policy behind this is wrong in that the ministry and the minister think it's okay to appoint boards to represent communities when communities have very little input. Basically, the appointees under this section become unpaid employees of the minister.
I want to say again how disappointed I am that this section is being amended, when the last section provided for some form of democracy at the community level and provided for communities to be involved in decision-making then -- the communities having some say in boards making decisions.
I think that the accountability for the boards to the communities is totally decimated under this section, because what I see here is the boards reporting to the minister and not
[ Page 6244 ]
necessarily to the community. I know that some of the boards around the province are now advertising for people to take positions on community advisory committees.
But I will tell the minister that we're going to watch this, because I don't think that's good enough. Again, the applications are coming to the board, and the boards or their appointees will decide who sits on these committees.
I want to remind the minister that at the AVIM I attended earlier this year, there was a unanimous resolution passed that asked the minister not to provide this kind of regressive and repugnant legislation, and to disregard or throw away the idea of appointed boards, restore some democracy and have the boards elected. So I'm just getting that on the record and saying that this is not right. I think communities across the province have spoken about this, and we will be watching this very carefully.
Section 5 approved on division.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, there is a floor amendment -- a technical amendment -- that I would read, to amend section 7 as follows:
[SECTION 7, in the proposed section 7, section 6(4), by deleting "board" and substituting "council".]
Amendment approved.
Section 7 as amended approved.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Abbott: Section 9, section 7.1, provides that: "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."
Could the minister advise, first of all, what that provision adds to the previous section 8, section 7(2), which says that councils must "give due regard to the Provincial standards and specified services"? What does 7.1 do? What are the additional things that are envisioned by the minister with respect to 7.1?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This section is to deal with the matters that may arise that come before a board or a council beyond regular procedural matters, giving specific regulation to such matters as participation in inventory management of a program for blood -- a matter that is currently in the public domain. That's one example. Another example may be to follow Health Employers Association of B.C. guidelines. A third example may be ensuring that the board complies with the funding letter conditions. Those are some of the examples.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
C. Hansen: I'd like to deal specifically with new section 16.1 on the bottom of page 5, and I'd like to ask the minister what she sees as the potential ramifications for private health care facilities in the province -- in terms of the power that is being given to the minister, as it may relate
On the bottom of page 5, section 13 of Bill 28 provides for a new section in the act which will be section 16.1, which reads: "(1) The minister may direct by order that the amalgamation of a designated corporation and a board or council shall occur on a date specified by the minister in the order." It continues, of course, on the top of page 6. I would like to ask the minister to clarify what implications that may have for private health care providers in British Columbia.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This will actually allow the minister to direct that an amalgamation between a designated corporation and a board or council shall occur on a date specified by the minister. Currently, where a hospital society refuses to amalgamate, the minister has relied on cabinet power in the Hospital Act to appoint a public administrator to act in place of the society and to provide required consent. The impetus for this position is the need to be able to compel amalgamation of non-hospital societies.
C. Hansen: I'm looking for some clarification. If we have, for example, a private nursing home that's run either by a private corporation or by a not-for-profit society, does this particular section give the minister the power to in effect expropriate those particular facilities? I think it's something that needs clarification.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there will be no expropriation.
C. Hansen: I don't see that in here. Basically what this particular provision does is give the minister very, very broad power. My reading of this particular section of this act is that there is nothing to prevent the minister from assuming that kind of power. I can appreciate the fact that what's in Hansard tonight may have some bearing on clarifying an interpretation of this act. But I don't see anything in terms of the wording of this act that really gives that kind of reassurance to a private society -- for example, a not-for-profit society running a private nursing home. My reading of this thing is that this clause gives the minister the power to in effect expropriate that particular private nursing home.
I would like to ask the minister: where is it
Hon. J. MacPhail: The clause does not in any way contemplate expropriation. I believe the member is probably raising the concerns raised by Pricare, and that's fair enough. I've met with Pricare and have given them the same assurances, but I appreciate the member raising it on their behalf again. There is no contemplation of expropriation anywhere in this legislation. If for some reason -- and the members opposite have actually raised some examples where they disapprove of a private society receiving public funding or in any way being governed in a private matter
C. Hansen: To set the record straight, this was not a matter that was brought to me by Pricare. I have not been
[ Page 6245 ]
approached by them. It was a matter that was brought to me by a not-for-profit organization. I guess my concern, in terms of the service that's being provided by some of these non-governmental health care providers in terms of nursing homes, is that there is a real concern that they will be forced into these kinds of amalgamations, which, while they may be seen as in the best interests of the ministry, totally usurp the power of these not-for-profit organizations. I would like to ask the minister what protection there is for those not-for-profit, non-governmental nursing homes in the province -- that they will not be forced into some kind of compulsory amalgamation under the terms of this particular section.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually would like a little more reasoning behind why the member is asking for this assurance, because that would suggest to me how I respond. If somehow the member is suggesting that a fully publicly funded organization that is not for profit should somehow not be held accountable for the funds that that organization is receiving and that somehow there should be no public accountability for the requirement for integration or amalgamation, then I would like him to suggest that.
I have met with all organizations -- not-for-profit organizations, private organizations and public organizations -- and given them complete assurances that where they wish to integrate and amalgamate, so be it. If there are situations in the public interest where an organization refuses to amalgamate for reasons that are only for public safety or in the public interest, then the power does rest with the funding ministry to bring about amalgamation. But in no way are we going to set about doing that without good reason -- that being the public interest. I have given all of those assurances.
But I would be interested to know if the member opposite is saying that even though an organization is completely funded by public tax dollars, they should not be held accountable for that funding. I am sure that's not what he is suggesting.
C. Hansen: That's not what I am suggesting. My concern is that there may be a public policy motive in giving the minister power when it comes to amalgamation and serving the public interest, but that's not what this particular section does. This particular section -- the way it is worded -- gives the minister very broad, sweeping powers. There is nothing in here that limits the minister's powers. I think it's typical of what we often see coming through in legislation: to solve a very small problem that may exist, you give the minister sweeping powers. By doing that we wind up removing the accountability that should and must exist back to this chamber and to the Legislature.
My concern is not that the minister has powers to solve those kinds of specific problems that may exist; my concern is that we are giving very sweeping powers to force amalgamations in cases that may not necessarily make sense and in cases that may be driven by other motives, if I could dare raise the subject. My concern is: if that is as simple as the minister's motivation is, why are we being asked to give the minister such sweeping powers under this particular section?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Subsection 16.1(1) is qualified by 16.1(2), where it makes it very clear that it can only be done in the public interest, and I can't imagine anyone arguing against amalgamation being done in the public interest. But 16.1(2) very clearly limits the powers under which one would amalgamate.
G. Abbott: My questions are largely of a housekeeping nature, but I do want to clarify a couple of points. In the case, for example, of the North Okanagan regional health board, the board was not an amalgamation of existing boards but rather an amalgamation of existing councils into a new board. Is that taken for granted in the act? There is a section where you have councils to new councils and boards to new boards, but there's no reference to councils to a new board.
[8:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I take the member's point, but I will just clarify. There was an interim system of councils, but what this legislation really does is go from what the system in place is to what was the old societies in place. The interim structure -- under new directions of councils, etc. -- is not what's dealt with under this. The amalgamation is from societies to the new boards or councils.G. Abbott: I want to briefly get the minister's comments with respect to the transfer of debts and obligations. First of all, I presume that given that the old boards did not have any authority to raise or expend money for capital projects, the debts and obligations that the old boards would bring to the new boards are minimal at this point. Are there exceptions to that in the province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The new boards and councils assume the assets and liabilities of the old entities. They have been minimal anyway, but the new boards do assume that.
G. Abbott: With the new regional health boards coming into place, we had a very good discussion in estimates about the relationship between regional hospital district boards, which, of course, are an adjunct to regional districts, and the new regional health boards. Are the boundaries of the new regional health boards -- where they exist, as opposed to councils -- contiguous with the boundaries of the new regional hospital districts in every case?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We went into some detail on this in estimates, and I actually thought the member participated in that. Let me reiterate that the UBCM is sponsoring a ministry-UBCM consultation on this very matter, to resolve any discrepancies or bring about changes that make sense for both the new regional health boards, community health councils and the regional hospital districts. The consultation is ongoing, and I understand that it's meeting with a great deal of success.
C. Hansen: This is a question that I probably could have dealt with under any of the sections before we get into part 3. This is probably as good a section as any, because it is such an extensive section. Given that the slogan that we had heard so much about in years gone by was "Closer to Home," what I see as a principle behind this bill is now closer to the minister. I would like to ask the minister if she could explain to us how it is that this legislation has not only come full circle, in terms of "Closer to Home," but we've actually gone one step beyond. We actually have now, under this legislation, a far more centralized system, given the power that this bill gives to the minister, than we had prior to this government announcing the so-called Closer to Home policy. I know it's a general question, but it is a question that is vitally important to the fundamental aspects of this bill. I'd like to hear the minister defend the fact that there is so much centralization going on in this section that it's bringing all of health care authority, control and power closer to the minister instead of closer to home.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member gives himself away by suggesting immediately that it's a general question. I am
[ Page 6246 ]
clearly quite disappointed that he didn't listen to the estimates debate at all, where this matter was explored over and over and over again. I take it for granted that the Liberal opposition doesn't in any way agree with Better Teamwork, Better Care. They have no alternative whatsoever, but they don't agree with it. We explored at length our intent and our commitments to moving our whole regionalization of health care into a Better Teamwork, Better Care model.
Frankly, the Hansard record stands for itself, on both the Liberal opposition's lack of a vision on that and our vision. I would be happy, if the hon. member doesn't have the time or the inclination to research the Hansard record himself, to personally find that for him. We spent hours discussing this very issue. Then again, I also spent a great deal of time in the early stages of this debate discussing that very matter.
C. Hansen: I will avoid the temptation to rise to that rather cheap shot, if I could say so. Certainly we are debating Bill 28; this is not in the context of the ministry estimates. Bill 28 in itself is a record. The debate that happens in this chamber is a record.
I will ask the minister a very straightforward question. I would like to ask the minister to defend, in her words, the fact that this bill gives more power to the minister than has ever existed before in the history of health matters in British Columbia, in terms of health authorities, in terms of the way that health institutions around this province have operated since day one. This piece of legislation gives the minister more centralized power than has ever existed before in the history of this province.
This is not closer to home; this is not closer to the Legislature. This is closer to the minister. This is power that she is asking us to give to her in this legislation. It's not her ministry estimates; it's Bill 28. Could the minister justify to this House, in the context of this legislation, why it is that we should approve so much centralization of authority in the Minister of Health of this province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually glad that we're doing this at this time of night so that the public will actually see the waste that goes on in this Legislature in terms of debate. I will personally get out the estimates debate where we discussed this hour after hour. If the opposition can't delineate between estimates and legislation, I can. But let me answer the member's rather naïve question, if I could.
Actually, I'm pleased that our government was elected in 1996, as opposed to the Liberal opposition, because we would be in deep trouble if this Liberal opposition were in power. It would be a very confusing matter -- the flip-flop, flip-flop of the Liberal opposition. Let me make very clear what change has taken place.
Prior to this legislation it was Victoria that decided everything. Somehow the hon. member seems to think that there was this great model of regionalization that existed before. And what I will tell you is that this is the new model of Better Teamwork, Better Care. We are moving things closer to the community. There are now hundreds and hundreds of people who have decision-making authority over resource allocation, integration and amalgamation, and frankly, it's working. I'll bet that brings a great deal of heartache to the Liberal opposition, who absolutely abhor it when a new policy actually works for the people of British Columbia. Nevertheless, it's there, it's working and this legislation confirms it.
C. Hansen: I will leave it with one comment. This legislation gives more power -- centralized power, centralized control -- to the Minister of Health of British Columbia than we have ever seen before in history. She can appoint all the boards she wants around this province, she can pick her friends, she can pick her insiders -- anyone she wants -- but the fact of the matter is that this is not decentralization of health care; this is centralization. This is a system that is under the thumb of the Minister of Health. We on this side of the House supported regionalization. We supported the ability of communities around this province to make decisions on the kind of health care that they want, and what we see in this legislation is a total, complete reversal of that.
If anybody wants to talk about flip-flops, they should talk about Bill 28 and the promise this government made to decentralize health care closer to home -- to give decision-making to communities. And now, because they got into a huge mess with their union buddies in the health care sector, they are flip-flopping back on this legislation. Quite frankly, I think the minister should be ashamed that this is what they have gone through. And with that, I will turn it over to my colleague.
J. Dalton: I would like to return to section 13, section 16.1, which we seem to have strayed from a bit. Before I get into this, I might just comment that I didn't have the pleasure of sitting through the many hours of the minister's estimates; but I would say to her that if she was asked questions about any bill that's before this House and she chose to answer them, that's her business. But we're dealing with Bill 28 tonight
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Hon. Chair, we are dealing with Bill 28 in committee stage tonight, and I think it's only fair that we put questions on the record. And if the minister wants to give some flippant, off-the-cuff, stupid remark such as, "Go and read the Blues," that is totally irrelevant.
I am looking at section 13, section 16.1(2), which my colleague from Quilchena drew the minister's attention to. "In the public interest" -- how can the public in any way be satisfied that with all of these conditions, whereby she or her successor
Remember, hon. minister, that we've always advocated that a pilot project should have been undertaken, and the minister never agreed to that. Then, of course, she had to do a backtrack last fall, now we're in this mess that we are today, and now we've got this bill before us. So we've gone full circle back to the third floor. We're now back in the minister's office. I am very concerned -- and I'm certainly not alone -- that the public interest will hardly be served by the confusion that this minister and the ministry have created.
[8:15]
Let me give a specific example; maybe the minister would like to hear a specific example so that she could at least try something on for size. On the North Shore, which I think is probably one of the better examples of a council and a region struggling -- given the lack of direction from Victoria as to what their actual mandate is[ Page 6247 ]
tinually negotiating with organizations such as the Kiwanis in North and West Vancouver. I happen to a member of the North Van Kiwanis, and we're very proud of the housing and the seniors projects that the Kiwanis have undertaken over the years on the North Shore. For example, the West Vancouver Kiwanis have been negotiating with this ministry and this government for several years about the status of the Kiwanis Lodge on 22nd Street. I can tell you -- because I speak to the Kiwanis members regularly -- that the ministry has been anything but helpful. I would like the minister to clarify: does she feel that it will be in the public interest that one day she is just going to order that something such as the Kiwanis Lodge, the Kiwanis Lynn Manors in North Vancouver, or other such examples, are going to be -- in her wisdom -- arbitrarily amalgamated?
I'll add one other thing before the minister answers, if she cares to comment. One of the big issues that many organizations such as my Kiwanis Club are concerned about is that they've put in many hours and literally years of voluntary service. Is the ministry going to be pulling the plug on all of that voluntary service, which, of course, is free? And I think the minister can understand free. There's a huge cost saving through these organizations and what they contribute to the communities. I'm very concerned that amalgamation -- this kind of power that we're going to grant, heaven forbid, to the minister in this section -- will not be used in the public interest, but will be used as a power grab. As I say, we're going full circle, and we're back on the third floor in the minister's office. So perhaps the minister could assist us with that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Frankly, this is exactly the issue that we spent a great deal of time on in estimates. I would refer the member to the Hansard debate on that. The member can waste all the time he wants in what he claims to be a separate issue under the legislation, but exactly this question was discussed at length. We went into it in a very detailed way, in which assurances were given to the Legislature and to the Kiwanis about our cooperation in working on reaching resolution with the Kiwanis in terms of complicated land issues and complicated funding issues and, at the end of the day, delivering the best service possible to the residents of the North Shore. I would refer the member to the Hansard debate of that day.
H. Giesbrecht: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Giesbrecht: Perhaps to alleviate some of the tension, I would like to introduce one of my constituents who is here taking in this debate. He's a first-time visitor to this House and an old friend of mine. It's one of those rare occasions when I get to compete with the member for Peace River South. Would the House please make Ted Wilson welcome.
G. Abbott: My question is related to section 13, section 15.2(3)(b). That subsection states: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is merely ensuring that anyone who had an issue with the old board continues to be able to have that same legal right and legal standing with the new board. Just by virtue of changing to a new board, people's rights are not eliminated because of that. It's a protection.
G. Abbott: I think I already understood the portion of the question that the minister's answer was related to. That's certainly what we see as the same right to sue being extended from the old boards to the new boards. My question is more along the lines of what practical effect this provision would have, given that the only source of funds that a regional health board has are those funds which are provided to them by the province, as I understand it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What this section deals with is that previous rights to sue carry over with the new rights to sue, and all obligations carry forward with that in terms of compensation, as well.
G. Abbott: I assume that if a new board or an old board is sued by an aggrieved party that feels for whatever reason that their interests have been unlawfully dealt with by the board
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
G. Abbott: I'm assuming from that that the board members are protected in that way, and fair enough.
The only other point in this section I have a question on is with respect to subsection (4)(a). This is just an explanatory question. Section 13, section 15.2(4)(a), reads: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's any legal entity that has had dealings with the board.
S. Hawkins: Under section 13, section 16.1(1), I'm wondering if the minister can give us a definition of the term "designated corporation" and if she could clarify whether it's just in respect to private facilities or publicly owned facilities. Can it apply to foundations? If so, will there be compensation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I answered part of that question for the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. "Designated corporation" is defined in the act.
Section 13 approved on division.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment standing in my name on Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 15, in the proposed section 19.7(3) by deleting "90" and substituting "120".]On the amendment.
C. Hansen: Actually, I'd like to ask the minister why this particular change was deemed to be necessary.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is to deal with the aspect that there were 90 days for the certification to be made, but there
[ Page 6248 ]
were the same contiguous 90 days for the board to deal with the same certification. So the potential could have arisen for the certification to come in on the eighty-ninth day. The board would not then have had time to deal with that, so we have given the board 120 days. The first 90 days is for the certification, but the board has 120 days in order to fully deal with that certification.
Amendment approved.
J. Dalton: Might I suggest, for the ease of discussion for the committee, that we take these sections -- 19.1, etc. -- in numerical order? Otherwise we're going to be jumping all over the map, because this is a very extensive section. It goes on for five pages in the bill. If that would be appropriate
The Chair: Okay. That sounds appropriate, so we'll do that.
On section 15, section 19.1.
J. Dalton: I have a question on the definition of "nurse." The definition of nurse has been changed in Bill 28. In the health sector labour relations regulation, the one which we'll be dealing with under section 19.3, " 'nurse' means a person who is authorized to practise under the Nurses (Registered) Act and works in a job for which that authorization is a prerequisite to performing the job as required by statute, regulation, program accreditation or the employer." That's the regulation definition. The definition that is in this act in section 19.1, which we're now dealing with, is as one can see it. I won't read that into the record, because it's there. The definition has been changed.
We have been advised from some sources that this is a very significant change in the definition of nurse. For example, in the regulation, only RNs were defined as nurses. Under this new legislation, in effect we're chiselling this now into stone, as opposed to regulations, which can be changed by order-in-council. Under this new legislation, a nurse includes single-registered psychiatric nurses as well as registered nurses. Can the minister, given that background and the difference in wording, give some explanation to the committee as to why the definition of nurse has been changed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I note with interest how many people will be participating as critics in this labour relations section. I look forward to it.
The definition of nurse has been modified slightly from the definition that was previously included in the regulation. Firstly, the definition has been expanded to include registered psychiatric nurses, which, as a result of the recommendations of Dorsey on the regulation, were to be included in the paramedical professional bargaining unit. Secondly, the definition was changed to ensure that whenever nursing qualifications are a requirement of the employer, the individuals affected would be included in the nursing bargaining unit established under the act.
Section 15, section 19.1, approved.
On section 15, section 19.2.
[8:30]
J. Dalton: Section 19.2 and some of the other more substantive subsections of this particular section we're dealing with will obviously require some amplification and explanation. Just as background before we get into section 19.2, if I may, I'll just make a brief reference to the Dorsey recommendations in 1995, because it's important that we set the stage. Obviously some of the things that we see in Bill 28 are a change from what Mr. Dorsey made recommendations about two years ago. For example, Dorsey recommended that the bargaining units in the health industry be reduced from 888 to ten, collective agreements be reduced from 200 to five, and the number of unions would be cut from 19 to seven. When we get through section 19.2, we'll then be getting to the repealing of the regulation, which is dealt with in the next subsection.Given that background and given that as we read in section 19.2, if there's any conflict between this bill that we're now debating and the Labour Relations Code, we are informed that this part of the bill that we're now debating will apply, that means that in the case of any conflict or controversy, the bill kicks in and supersedes the Labour Relations Code. Perhaps it's appropriate that we have the Labour minister sitting right behind the minister, so we can
Hon. J. MacPhail: Where's the main critic?
J. Dalton: Well, we have all sorts of critics over here, hon. minister, thank you. We have government critics and
If we can get back on track, hon. Chair
Interjections.
J. Dalton: We know, hon. Chair, that the crossfire is not permitted in the rules of the committee, but it seems to occur.
In the context of what Mr. Dorsey recommended two years ago and in the context that now we see another backtracking or flip-flopping or gathering of power back into the minister's office, can the minister give an explanation as to why it was necessary, in section 19.2, for the Labour Relations Code to be superseded by Bill 28?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This regulation existed before, and this merely gives direction to the Labour Relations Board on how they should proceed to interpret the legislation.
J. Dalton: Another concern I have, or at least another point I will make, is that we know, happily, that Bill 44 died a noble death -- not even on the order paper; the government had to withdraw Bill 44 from orders of the day. The point I'm making by raising that is that as we know, there was a provision in Bill 44 that the Labour Relations Board would have been given the authority to reopen its own hearings and determinations. Now we seem to be going quite the reverse. We're not granting that power to the Labour Relations Board, but we seem to be giving a fair amount of authority, under section 19.2, to usurp the authority of the Labour Relations Board. That's the point that I want to make sure is on record.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
When we go on to look at section 19.2(2), we are informed that the Labour Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a matter arising under this part, except, of course,
[ Page 6249 ]
when it will be convenient for the minister, no doubt, to invoke the authority that this particular subsection grants. She or the Labour minister or whomever in government may, arbitrarily or otherwise, make a decision that they are going to override the Labour Relations Code, which is the guiding statute for all labour relations in this province -- or is supposed to be. Instead of that, what we're doing in another backdoor approach is going back to an issue that my colleague from Quilchena and I raised earlier about power being gathered back into the minister's office instead of where it should be -- either out in the health regions or, in the case where a Labour Relations Code matter comes up, before the Labour Relations Board. Again, happily, at least the Labour Relations Board, at the moment, has not been granted the authority to reopen its own hearings. That's another can of worms that we don't want to open up.
I don't know that those comments of mine, hon. Chair, require a response. That will be up to the minister. But I want to make sure it's on record that this government is clearly guilty of pulling the rug out from under some of the important authority of the Labour Relations Board and putting that authority in a very misplaced direction.
Section 15, section 19.2 approved.
On section 15, section 19.3.
J. Dalton: Section 19.3 is a very interesting section because it's quite brief, but the regulation that it's repealing certainly isn't brief. It's regulation 329/95, which was passed pursuant to the Health Authorities Act, section 11.2. As well, this regulation has been amended at least twice that I'm aware of, so it's a fairly extensive regulation. The essence of it is that it is certainly, in part
Can the minister, firstly, explain to the committee why it was necessary to repeal this very extensive
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would like it noted that I do welcome the member for West Vancouver-Capilano to the debate. I know that he has been removed from his Labour critic's portfolio, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition made that commitment. I wonder if he has reversed that commitment and welcomed the hon. member back as the Labour critic. I understand that there have been a few reversals today in the Liberal opposition, but I do welcome him back into the discussion as what I assume is now the Labour critic. I actually welcome him back into the debate, with his extensive knowledge in the Labour area. I assume that it deals with his reappointment as Labour critic.
This section actually repeals the health sector labour relations regulation that was a decision of a court case. I assume, with the extensive experience in the area of labour relations that the hon member has, that he's aware of that court case. It does allow for certain actions and determinations, which were undertaken pursuant to that regulation, to remain effective. Subsection (2) ensures that the actions and restructuring undertaken under the regulation will continue to be valid and effective, unless they are inconsistent with the intent of this bill -- for example, the consolidation of separate bargaining units of the same trade union.
J. Dalton: I'll just make one other observation on this particular subsection that we're dealing with.
The minister is quite correct about law cases, but quite frankly, when you dig through all the many extensive references and changes that Bill 28 is bringing in in this area of labour relations, there is a not so subtle or hidden agenda -- that is, of course, that we're returning to the good old days of big unions and Dorsey recommendations that were taking us happily in the other direction. Now I think, quite frankly, we're reversing the field again.
I made comments just earlier about Bill 44, which was another not so subtle attempt to unionize the province, and here we are in the health industry doing the same thing. Certainly we in the opposition are on record as having voted against this in second reading and will obviously do so in committee and finally, as well.
This is not the route to go. If we are going to restructure health and get a handle on the many billions of dollars that are put into health delivery, Bill 28 is not the answer. That's quite simply a fact. It doesn't matter how the minister dresses it up in lawsuits and needs for restructuring.
What do we see in this bill? Certainly two things for sure: number one, a reconsolidation of power back in the minister's office; and number two, the expansion of unionization in the health field. That's not going to do patient care any good whatsoever.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just further to my comments earlier, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has completed his investigation into the matters that removed the hon. member from his critic's portfolio. I would welcome a public profile of that, because I know that being appointed as a critic is a very important role. I know that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had made a commitment to do an investigation into the matters affecting the removal of the member as Labour critic.
In fact, it does astonish me even further that the hon. member actually doesn't get the intent of this bill when he talks about big unions. In fact, what this bill does is allow even smaller unions to actually participate in the collective bargaining process that health labour relations affects. In fact, more unions are actually added to the right to represent members, but what this bill does do is maintain
Hon. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing myself.
[ Page 6250 ]
The Chair: Minister, if you would take your seat for a second, I would remind the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that if he wishes to have the floor, I'm sure he can have his turn. The Chair can barely hear the minister, and she's very close to the Chair. So please be mindful of that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What this does, of course, is maintain the collective bargaining regime. There will only be five collective agreements. That has maintained the spirit and intent of the Dorsey report, but also upholds the direction given by the court case.
Section 15, section 19.3 approved.
On section 15, section 19.4.
[8:45]
J. Dalton: Before you took over the chair, hon. Chair, the previous Chair had agreed on a ruling that we would take each of these subsections -- I'm describing them perhaps inaccurately -- within section 15, because that's the section in the bill that we're dealing with when we backtrack. I think we'd already agreed in committee to orderly discussion -- as much as that's possible -- and that we would take a very extensive section in logical, numerical order. I know the minister doesn't want to do that, because she wants to further throw a wrench into the works.While I'm on my feet, I'm hoping the minister isn't suggesting that I as an MLA am not entitled to get to my feet at any time in any bill or any estimate and ask any questions or comments that I wish.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Hon. Chair, two points I would like to make.
The Chair: Proceed, hon. member.
J. Dalton: I would suggest that this continuous crossfire coming from the minister is, number one, out of order and, number two, hardly relevant to the debate that we are conducting.
A question about section 19.4, if I may. It says that the following are the appropriate bargaining units, and then five are set out in this section. Question to the minister: does this mean that there are only five appropriate bargaining units possible? Is this the exclusive list, or could others be added to it through regulation or a ruling of the Labour Relations Board? Given that the minister has the authority to overrule the Labour Relations Board, could she in effect add to or subtract from even these bargaining units that are set out in this act?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Under section 19.4, five bargaining units are contemplated, but, of course, 19.5 applies as well -- that that can be modified by the Labour Relations Board.
J. Dalton: The minister, in a sense, jumped ahead a bit to a question I was probably going to ask later, but that's fair enough. We might also make reference, while we are looking ahead to other parts of this section, to 19.8(1)(b). I'll just make that point now for the committee, and we'll get to that in due course, because I think there may be another cross-reference there that's important.
Again, I would just point out -- because obviously we can't be jumping around, as the minister might be inviting us to do through her remark that I think we have to treat these things, at least, in a sequential order. It may be that as we get towards the end, we may want to then go back a bit and say: "Well, we already agreed on something back there."
We have to make sure
I have one other question about 19.4. The regulation -- again, which we don't have in front of us -- that we are repealing through this part of the bill, section 2(5) of the regulation, prohibits unions from raiding for a period of three years after the regulation came into force. If this regulation is repealed, which we will be doing through this bill, and 28 becomes law, there will be no raid restriction between the current unions or those unions which returned to the health sector. Is that an accurate observation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The restrictions that apply are contained in the Labour Code.
J. Dalton: Sorry, just one response to what the minister just said. Given, again, that we have the authority in this part of the act that the Labour Relations Board's rulings may be overruled by this part of the act, I don't have a lot of confidence, as the minister just responded, that in fact any rulings of the Labour Relations Board will stand, anyway.
Again, we have this dichotomy. We have a very important labour statute that happily will not be amended this session, and now we're coming along and tinkering with the Health Authorities Act. I think we're creating a problem, a confusion here, a contrast between one bill in one ministry -- the minister sitting behind the Health minister -- and her own portfolio. I don't know that these two things are going to be married very well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no confusion. This is merely giving direction on bargaining structure. All other aspects of the relationship are covered by the Labour Relations Code.
Section 15, section 19.4 approved.
On section 15, section 19.5.
J. Dalton: Section 19.5 allows a review of appropriate bargaining units, the ones that we just dealt with in the previous section. We are informed: "The Minister of Labour may on application
Hon. J. MacPhail: Any interested party.
J. Dalton: Would it have to be an interested party who has a labour relations issue coming out of the delivery of
[ Page 6251 ]
health, such as a union member or a health employer? Or could it be a disgruntled patient, for example, or a doctor who's not satisfied? I'm just not quite sure, from the point of view of law, who would have legal standing to actually invoke this part of the bill and go before the Labour Relations Board for a ruling.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a discretionary power, and the application would have to be meaningful.
J. Dalton: Would this discretionary power be one that the Labour Relations Board will be ruling upon? Or is it one whereby, as we know from previously, this part of the bill can override the Labour Relations Board? I'm obviously speaking hypothetically, because we don't have a real example to trot out here, but we have to gain some understanding of how the process will take place. Is it possible that some person, seemingly with standing, could make an application to the Labour Relations Board, and the Minister of Health could override that person and say: "No, you do not have the authority to take that forward"? Is that a possible scenario?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
J. Dalton: Would it be a possible scenario, given that it's the Minister of Labour who may, on his or her own motion
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. It names the Minister of Labour.
J. Dalton: Well, I can read the section, thank you. I know it says the Minister of Labour, but as we know from previously, it also says in this part of the bill that this part of the bill can override the Labour Relations Board. Given that the Minister of Labour is in charge of the responsibility of the Labour Relations Board, I'm not so sure that it couldn't be possible to have a bit of an internal gunfight. The Minister of Health may in fact be invoking an authority that could supersede that of the Minister of Labour.
It's hypothetical, I agree, and therefore we needn't pursue that any further. But I'm just pointing out again that there are points in this bill, as we go through it, that I certainly think require further amplification and explanation. If all we're inviting is a multitude of labour relations hearings -- and we know that the health system is complex enough without making it more complex -- then I think we have to at least, in fairness, have the explanation as to what may possibly come down the pipeline.
If one day it unfortunately proves to be true, at least we can go back and say: "We told you so." I think we've been doing that from time to time, have we not, hon. members? Forest Renewal comes to mind, for example. We can certainly stand in this House and say to any government member who cares to listen: "We told you so."
Later this session we're going to be dealing with changes to Forest Renewal again, because what was predictably bound to go wrong did go wrong. I think we're going to have the same problems with Bill 28 and the revisions to the Health Authorities Act. That's a point that, over time, we're going to have to see, but I'm fearful that that will in fact be the case.
One other point about section 19.5 is that the section gives the Labour Relations Board, upon the direction of the Minister of Labour -- which we've dealt with -- considerable latitude to restructure the appropriate bargaining units in the health sector. Again, I think -- and it's the point I raised under 19.4 -- that obviously the authority we're giving to the Minister of Labour and then on to the Labour Relations Board may in fact add more tinkering to the system. We may end up with more than these five appropriate bargaining units that we see in the previous section, 19.4.
I assumed that the whole purpose of the exercise, at least before we got to this bill, was that we were trying to simplify the delivery of health, and we were trying to make less complicated the whole picture of unionization in the health industry. As I said before, and I just want to restate it, I don't think this bill is accomplishing that. I think it's doing quite the reverse. I think we are taking a step backwards, the same step backwards that Bill 44 would have introduced if -- heaven forbid -- that thing had gone forward in this session.
I'll just say one other thing in that regard. I hope that Bill 44, in any form whatsoever, never sees the light of day again, quite frankly. That sort of thing is what this province doesn't need now, next spring, next fall or ten years from now. If the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour or the next Minister of Labour, who I see has joined us in the Legislature
Section 15, sections 19.5 and 19.6 approved.
On section 15, section 19.7 as amended.
J. Dalton: I know we want to rush through this, because, after all, we've probably got 17 other bills on the agenda for this evening. But let's make sure we understand this one first.
Section 19.7 deals with the transfer back of employees. Of course, this is a provision whereby whatever was happening in the regulation that we're now repealing may in fact carry forward. That's fair enough; we can't just pull the plug on everything that was developing in the health system.
Under this section, we have the confirmation of the reassignment of employees between the seven trade unions which were permitted under the regulation. I'll just throw this example out for the committee. Nurses transferred from the BCGEU to the BCNU would remain in the BCNU and not transfer back to the BCGEU. I think we can follow that. Is that an accurate example whereby, as I say in that particular case, nurses may in fact not transfer back to the previous union? What is going to be the status of this interim period as we invoke the provisions of Bill 28, having now repealed -- or we are about to repeal -- the regulation that's been in effect for two years?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member makes it hard to answer a question when he goes on after pointing to the example, but let me just deal with the example. As he describes in that situation, the nurses would stay in the BCNU.
Section 15, section 19.7 as amended approved.
Section 15, section 19.8 approved.
On section 15, section 19.9.
[9:00]
C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister why this particular process was selected, and I'm thinking particularly of subsec-[ Page 6252 ]
tion 19.9(3)(d) on page 10. I would like to ask the minister why they have set it up in this particular way as opposed to giving each of the unions involved one vote, for example. Why not treat each of the unions in this bargaining association equally? I'm sure the minister has reasons, and she probably understands the reason for my question as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, some unions will have 22 members, and some will have 10,000 members. This is to bring fairness to the voting structure.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
C. Hansen: Aside from the fact that the Labour Relations Board is given the authority to come up with a system that recognizes that particular weighted vote -- if I could say that -- could the minister give us any sense as to how she thinks the Labour Relations Board would come up with a scheme that allows for each individual union's authority and relationship with its members to be recognized and at the same time come up with a system of weighted vote? Is there a system that she has in mind? Perhaps the Minister of Labour, behind her, could help us with some explanation as to how the Labour Relations Board is going to deal with this particular section.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I am very pleased with this section, where the articles of association require the unions to work out their relationship amongst themselves. It does bring a great deal of order, actually, to the bargaining structure. That was entirely consistent with the Dorsey report. The Labour Relations Board will get involved only where the unions are unable to resolve, through agreed-upon articles of association, how certain aspects of the association will occur. It is the custom of the Labour Relations Board to conduct investigations and hearings and make a ruling on such matters where everyone has a right to participate, small unions and large unions.
J. Dalton: I just have one question. Under subsection 19.9(7) of this fairly lengthy section we're dealing with -- right at the bottom of page 10 -- can the minister explain why it is necessary that articles of association be deemed to be decisions of the LRB? I'm just curious as to why that was put in there.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Where articles of association run into dispute, the Labour Relations Board is deemed, then, to have the ability to resolve the dispute and perhaps bring about change if necessary. This gives the authority, even upon voluntary agreement, that in the event of a dispute, the Labour Relations Board has the authority to resolve that dispute.
Section 15, sections 19.9 to 19.93 inclusive approved.
Section 15 as amended approved on division.
Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.
On section 19.
C. Hansen: Given the discussion that we had earlier regarding section 16.1, I would like the minister to explain to us how this particular section impacts on the discussion we had earlier.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry I didn't bring it up before. This section should give comfort to the member on his concern about expropriation. It's saying here that expropriation does not apply -- that amalgamation does not involve expropriation. The act doesn't apply, and therefore if there was any amalgamation that required compensation, compensation would be a given, as opposed to expropriation.
Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.
Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.
Leave not granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 45.
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)
Our province provides free quality public education for all children in British Columbia. The Charter says that francophone students are entitled to receive that education in French. The courts of this land have interpreted section 23 of the Charter as requiring francophone management and control of francophone education.
This legislation is designed to meet the needs of the francophone community in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, students have the right to enrol in a school operated by the authority if one of their parents is a Canadian citizen whose first language learned and still understood is French, or who received primary school instruction in Canada in French, or who has a child who is educated or has been educated in Canada with French as the language of instruction.
The authority under this act -- the Francophone Education Authority -- will have the rights and responsibilities similar to that of a school board. The legislation is based on the school boards established under the School Act. Those authorities and responsibilities include the responsibility to set
[ Page 6253 ]
up and operate francophone schools. Specifically, its rights and responsibilities include setting up, operating, administering and managing francophone schools; setting local policy for those schools; providing education programs in French to eligible students; spending funds and approving educational resource materials, supplies and other services for francophone schools; developing and offering francophone education programs and courses, and hiring and dismissing employees.
[9:15]
I want to make it clear that the focus of this act is in providing this Francophone Education Authority with the ability and responsibility to provide francophone education to eligible students. The authority does not have the power to offer an education program to non-francophone children or to provide anything other than a francophone education program.The authority will provide a francophone education to students eligible under the Charter who choose to enrol in a school operated by the authority and who live in 18 school districts on southern Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. Eligible students under the Charter who live outside those areas -- who live elsewhere in the province -- will, where numbers warrant, continue to have access to a francophone education program delivered by their local school board.
Parents who exercise their rights to a francophone education for their children and who have that education delivered by the Francophone Education Authority may chose to vote for members of the authority's board of directors. If they chose to do this, they may not also vote for members of their local school board, but they may still vote in a school district referendum, provided that they are otherwise entitled to vote.
Funding for the Francophone Education Authority comes from the province in the same way as it does for school districts. Funding will be provided using the funding formula for francophone students. As a point of information, for 1996-97, regular provincial funding for the Francophone Education Authority totalled some $11.2 million, which is what boards would have received for these students had they been enrolled with the school board. In addition, startup funding for the authority is being provided by the province and the federal government on a cost-shared basis, and the province's share of those additional funds was $3 million for '96-97.
The purpose of this act is clear and concise. It provides francophone management and control for francophone education in British Columbia. It's consistent with our government's commitment to provide a quality education to all children in this province. But in addition to introducing this legislation, our government has committed to keep on working with the authority to make sure that francophone education in British Columbia meets the needs of the francophone community.
A. Sanders: I'd like permission, hon. Speaker, as we have two official languages, to read my response in English and in French. [French spoken.]
Hon. Chair, Bill 45 is designed to provide the francophone community of British Columbia with management and control of francophone education. This is required by the Charter. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to the francophone minority living in British Columbia, where numbers warrant, an education in the French language reflecting the francophone culture. The Francophone Education Authority will manage and deliver francophone education to students with section 23 rights under the Charter. The amendments to the School Act will give the FEA, the Francophone Education Authority, many of the same rights that exist for school boards elsewhere in British Columbia. They currently do not own their own schools, but the legislation will allow the FEA to own land and buildings.
The B.C. francophone federation is of the opinion that Bill 45 does not meet section 23 requirements, and the judgment by Justice Vickers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
The office of the commissioner of official languages in Ottawa also has legal counsel looking at Bill 45 as we speak, and they will be giving us their opinion by the end of the week. I'm hoping that the School Amendment Act, being discussed now in second reading, will be amenable to possible amendments, should those be necessary to not have British Columbia have to go back to court in order to satisfy what has occurred under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for francophone students.
I apologize to any of those francophones in the community who had to listen to my French, but it's the best I could do. My children are teaching me, and they speak French to me at home, and I'm trying very hard. I feel that all Canadians should be bilingual, and I try, in a very truncated way, to make my own contribution to that need and necessity.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: In closing this rather brief debate, second reading on the School Amendment Act, 1997, I want to say only a couple of things. First, we are committed to meeting our obligations under section 23 of the Charter. That is why we've established the Francophone Education Authority, and that is why this government is now introducing these amendments to the School Act: to enshrine the roles and responsibilities of that authority in the laws of this province.
Hon. Speaker, I commend the member opposite for her remarks in French. I agree with her that we should, as much as possible, be able to address the issues of our country in both of our official languages. I regret that I'm not able to demonstrate even the facility that she has, and I commend her for her efforts.
Let me only say on a final point that I truly recognize that there are elements within the francophone community that have concerns that this act does not go far enough. I believe that this act does, indeed, meet the test of section 23 of the Charter, and that we are moving forward in our commitment to provide a francophone education to francophone students of this province. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to debate the specific provisions of this act and its adherence to section 23 and Justice Vickers's decisions more thoroughly at committee stage.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
[ Page 6254 ]
Bill 45, School 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 43.
INDUSTRY TRAINING AND
APPRENTICESHIP ACT
(second reading)
This legislation flows from the recommendations of the minister's committee, appointed by the former Minister of Education, Skills and Training, and Labour -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. The committee was composed of representatives of business, labour, education and training providers, government and the Provincial Apprenticeship Board. Members of that minister's committee were brought together to make proposals for broadening access, improving coordination and increasing the effectiveness of government spending on industry training and apprenticeship. They were challenged to address these issues in the context of an expanded industry training and apprenticeship system, which will be current, relevant and responsive to the needs of industry, workers and learners.
The result of their deliberations was a unanimous recommendation to create a new structure to govern industry training and the apprenticeship system. I believe it is very important to note that their recommendations were widely supported by all the partners. Government's acceptance of the committee's recommendations demonstrates our commitment to a new philosophical approach which gives industry responsibility for governing its training and apprenticeship system. Its approach is consistent with our commitment to developing a highly skilled, employed British Columbia labour force.
The mandate of the commission as set out in this act is: first, to create a more integrated and coordinated system which facilitates a smooth transition from school to work and which promotes ongoing skills upgrading and lifelong learning; second, to expand the number of skilled persons in designated trades and occupations, based on identified labour market need; third, to increase the proportion of members of underrepresented groups in designated trades and occupations; fourth, to develop a system of provincially recognized credentials that promote laddering, portability, mobility and transferability; and finally, to make the best use of available resources.
In carrying out this mandate, the commission will consult with a wide range of stakeholders in the industry training and apprenticeship system, including underrepresented groups. Under the act, the commission will be composed of a maximum of 25 members, including the chair, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. As recommended by the minister's committee, the structure of the commission membership will be eight members drawn from the business community, eight from the labour community, four representing the public post-secondary education and training system, four from government, and the chair.
In making these appointments, we are committed to ensure demographic and geographic representation and to ensure that the interests of all British Columbians and all regions of the province are considered. In addition, government will want to ensure representation of trades and occupations representative of small, medium and large businesses and of the full range of industry sectors.
[9:30]
The act provides for the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of a chief executive officer, who reports to the commission and who will be responsible for the day-to-day operations and administration of the commission and commission staff. Staff of the commission will be public servants, with all the benefits and rights of public servants. This is particularly important, since the existing apprenticeship staff of the Ministry of Labour will be transferred to the commission.The act provides the commission with the authority to establish committees, both for operational and advisory purposes, in order to carry out its statutory mandate. The operational committees will focus on key issue areas such as credentials, labour market information, strategic planning, audit, K-to-12 liaison, representation of underrepresented groups in the labour force and apprenticeship. The advisory committees could include existing trade advisory committees, college program advisory committees and others. It's expected that the commission will integrate those committees into a cohesive network.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the act deal specifically with financial administration and accountability. A special account of the consolidated revenue fund will be established to provide for funding of the commission. Funding sources for the commission will include voted funds from both the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the Ministry of Labour, in addition to revenues from fees and other revenue initiatives. In terms of accountability, which is an issue of critical importance to all parties in this House -- as we've discussed at some length in the estimates of my ministry -- the commission will be required to submit an annual report to government and also a business plan, which will include proposed revenues and expenditures, assets and liabilities, and performance objectives and proposed outcomes. The commission must also report annually on its success in achieving its stated objectives and outcomes, as well as fiscal performance.
The act gives the commission the power to designate trades and occupations for the purposes of expanding and coordinating training. In order to ensure public accountability, the criteria for designation will be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Under the Apprenticeship Act, the authority currently rests with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so this pattern will be continued. Also -- and again for reasons of public accountability -- the requirement for compulsory certification in specific designated trades and occupations rests with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, the commission is charged with providing advice to government in this regard.
The act also sets up the necessary qualifications and exemption provisions for an individual to work in a compulsory certification trade or occupation. For each designated trade or occupation, the commission must establish an industry training or apprenticeship program, including standards and requirements for each program. The act also allows the commission to register an industry training or apprenticeship agreement between an individual and his or her employer or another authorized party. Industry training or apprenticeship agreements are required in compulsory certification trades and occupations.
[ Page 6255 ]
The act provides the commission with the authority to grant credentials to individuals who have successfully completed an industry training and apprenticeship program, or who otherwise meet the requirements established, approved or recognized by the commission. These requirements may include the attainment of skills through prior learning and work experience, as well as the recognition of the interprovincial red seal certification.
There is an appeal mechanism set out in the act, which includes the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of an appeal officer, and the appeal officer must not be a member or an employee of the commission. This is to ensure fairness and independence in the appeal process. Grounds of appeal must specifically relate to issuance of credentials and registration of industry training and apprenticeship agreements. The act also contains a provision, by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for assessing employers or employees for the cost of maintaining an industry training or apprenticeship program in a designated trade or occupation. It's the same provision that exists in the current Apprenticeship Act.
The act also provides the commission with the ability to provide advice to government with respect to assessments. The difference with this act is that any revenues from industry assessments will be placed in the commission's special account, and will be used specifically in support of the commission's mandate, rather than going into the government's general account. Because we are talking about a dramatically new way of doing business with respect to industry training and apprenticeship, there is a provision for the appointment of a committee to review and evaluate the legislation, including the commission.
With the proclamation of this act, the existing Apprenticeship Act will be repealed. In order to ensure consistency with the new legislation, consequential amendments are being made to the Barbers Act, the College and Institute Act, the Financial Information Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Hairdressers Act, and the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act.
I have spoken at some length about some of the details of this act. I did so deliberately. I wish to have these general comments on the record, because this act is truly important for the future of industry training and apprenticeship in this province, and those who review the records of this debate should know the details of the act that we are debating and the principles upon which it is based.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the minister's committee and congratulate them on their willingness to move beyond vested interests and propose a new approach which is in the best interests of the system broadly. I also want to confirm again this government's support -- both myself and the Minister of Labour and our colleagues -- for this legislation and for this exciting new initiative.
R. Masi: It's interesting that the Minister of Education, Skills and Training is presenting this bill. The last time I went through this bill in any detail it was the Minister of Labour that I was discussing the ins and outs of the bill with. But perhaps it's a new way of doing business in this House, I'm not sure. We'll see how it works.
I'm pleased to rise and speak on second reading of Bill 43, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act. The intent of the act is to provide a new structure to govern the industry training and apprenticeship system through the establishment of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, commonly known as ITAC.
While the intent of the bill is supportable, I have some reservations about the structure of the commission, the makeup of the commission and the economic context in which the bill is presented. The former Provincial Apprenticeship Board was considered by many to be extremely rigid and lacking in vision, largely because of its advisory-only mandate. It lacked the ability to undertake the necessary changes needed to keep pace with the fast-moving developments in the skills and training field.
However, we have to ask the question: in light of the government's unsatisfactory and unhealthy financial situation, is it necessary to establish such a large and complex body -- with its attendant bureaucratic structure -- to achieve its goal? Could a revisit of the present Provincial Apprenticeship Board structure and mandate accomplish the same goal without the attendant cost and additional bureaucracy?
Let us examine the size of the commission: 24 commissioners will be appointed, plus a chair of the commission, for a total of 25. In addition, there will be appointed a chief executive officer. In addition, standing or executive committees may be appointed to address functional areas of responsibility -- for example, committees to deal with credentials, appeals and apprenticeship structures. But I have to question: would not a 12-person commission do as well? If standing committees are effective in their recommendations, why would it require 24 commissioners plus a chair plus a CEO to give acceptance or rejection to any recommendations put forward by these committees? The composition of the commission, with representation from industry, labour, education and government, is a positive move -- there is no doubt about that -- and all significant components in the skills and training area are represented.
However, the best structure in the world will not be effective unless the persons appointed to the commission come to the table with an open, flexible point of view. These appointees must not bring their partisan political beliefs or their single-issue points of view, or present inflexible positions from the body they represent. If this were to happen, we would then see few advances in this vital area of training and development. I have to say again that this is so important. It's the key quality of this bill. If it's to be successful, the right appointees have to be there. So I say to you, hon. Speaker, and to both ministers involved: the duality
While I'm on the topic of ministers, I have already noted that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education, Skills and Training are jointly charged with the administration of this act. It seems to me that in past times dualities and troikas and the like historically had difficulties related to effective management. Ultimately, in times of difficulty, a ministerial decision will have to be made. Who will make that decision? To whom does the chair of the commission take his concern? What if there is disagreement in fundamental public policy between the two ministers involved? Now, of course that never could happen, considering the quality of the two ministers involved at the present time, but as you know, hon. Speaker, ministers are transitory, governments are transitory, so perhaps we should look at the fundamental structure here. I see this duality and overlap of ministries as a potential source of problems and strongly recommend that a review of this particular organizational approach take place.
I would like to turn to the topic of credentialing and certification. While the intent of the act is to expand the training programs throughout the province, as commendable
[ Page 6256 ]
as it is, we still must guarantee to the apprentice and to the trainee that all his or her time and money spent receiving this training will be acceptable throughout the province and throughout the country generally. This is a major investment of time and money by these young people, and I don't think we can accept a sort of casual credentialing here in the way of some sort of off-hand letter or something like that. A credential must have validity. A credential must be readily accepted by employers without the newly trained person subjected to another battery of examinations and red tape. Of course, this carries on throughout the education system, where we have great difficulty in transferability.
As I mentioned, in addition to validity, certification should contain elements of transferability in order that a mature person would not have to begin all over again, and I appreciate the comments of the minister in this regard. Given the present state of the labour market, the state of flux, people moving -- mobility -- we just don't need to subject mature people to rigorous examinations of red tape if they've proven themselves. I understand that there is a section in the bill that allows for exemptions, and perhaps that's where it should be done.
[9:45]
We must also ask some questions about common goals involving all the participants in skills training. Will the commission, once established -- and I hope not -- revert back to an isolated perspective and disregard the fact that careers and skills training begin at an early age in school and must be regarded as a continuum involving many components: the elementary and secondary schools, the colleges, industry, labour and government? Effective skills development will involve a complete attitudinal shift not only by educators in the school system but by parents and labour leaders and investment and business leaders. The perception that skills training and development is a second-class approach to education must be changed.But skills and training must keep pace with job mobility, technological advances and changing societal requirements for work. Long periods of indenture with costly time-outs for theory sessions should be and can be eliminated. I hope the bill moves forward directly and that the new commission moves forward directly on this process. It is no wonder that the average age for apprentices in this province is 28, which is far too high. Young people must be given the opportunity to examine and investigate the wide variety and scope of today's job market. We must train young people to be on the cutting edge, and not to be inhibited by rigidity in our thinking and our actions.
One of the commission's mandates is to increase the number of trainees from underrepresented groups, including women, aboriginals, the disabled and visible minorities. This, again, is a commendable goal, and it should be pursued. We know that the number of women in the present apprenticeship training program is extremely low, and given the technological advances in most occupations -- which, in frank terms, have reduced the strength requirements to a minimum -- there is no reason for such a disparity in male-female numbers. However, all the best training programs, all the best intentions of commissions and all the best efforts of education, both secondary and post-secondary, will not succeed if there are no jobs to go to. If this government cannot encourage investment -- cannot change the negative investment climate that we now endure in this province -- all these plans and programs will be for nothing.
On balance, Bill 43 is supportable. However, the structure of the commission is somewhat top-heavy. The dual minister responsibility approach could -- I hope not -- lead to future problems. I have expressed warnings about the appointment of suitable members to the commission, and I have stressed the importance of the validity of credentialing. With that, I look forward to hearing further comments on this bill.
B. McKinnon: I am pleased to stand to speak to Bill 43, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act. I will be supporting this bill in principle. After reading through the bill, I found that there were a number of questions that will need to be addressed at the committee stage.
I feel that it is important that the province set standards and criteria for provincewide credentials for different trades. We need to strengthen and enhance our industry and apprenticeship training. The Provincial Apprenticeship Board that we now have is generally considered to be dysfunctional and archaic. People who have used this board have found it to be very inflexible. I hope that this new act will improve and establish a much broader mandate.
Through this bill, it is hoped that people will become more aware of an expanding labour market and the need to integrate education and training systems. It is important that people who wish to learn a different trade are given the opportunity to do so. This act recognizes that there are groups of people underrepresented in certain trades and occupations. Hopefully, this bill will be responsive to those needs and priorities of industry. This province needs skilled workers. Again, hopefully, this bill will be a step in the right direction.
This act establishes a formal commission, and to me that begs the question: why not just restructure the Provincial Apprenticeship Board? This commission that this act wishes to establish has all the characteristics of just another bureaucracy. The members of this commission will be appointed. This commission will have 24 members appointed, representing business, labour, education, training and government, plus one chairperson. This gives me some trepidation. We have seen and experienced the things that this government has done before, and it is the hope of the opposition that the government gets it right this time. We hope that the people appointed to this commission will have the knowledge, experience and expertise to do the job that this commission requires. We have seen time and time again this government saying one thing and doing another. They appoint their friends to these positions, who really don't have a clue what it's all about.
As I go further into this bill, I question this government's consultation process in this bill. They will be consulting with members before they are appointed. We have seen what this government thinks of the consultation process. We only have to look back at the consultation process that was used when the NDP downloaded on the municipalities. They promised that they would consult with the municipalities, and they signed a protocol agreement with UBCM. It didn't take very long for that agreement to be broken. They have not given us any reason to trust anything they say or do.
This is the same government that was afraid to bring forward no-fault insurance because they did not consult with the people of this province. This is the same government that pulled Bill 44 off the agenda because of the lack of consultation with the business community. I question the time frame in which this commission is appointed. This commission will be appointed for six consecutive years. That is far too long for any appointment on any commission or board to sit. Appointments should not exceed three years. This commission will be hiring staff, and this is where care has to be taken by govern-
[ Page 6257 ]
ment -- care that they are not establishing just another bureaucracy for this government to pay homage to their friends. How much is the Apprenticeship Act going to cost the taxpayer of this province, and what controls will be put on spending? How will this money be spent? We usually see the majority of the money going into wages, such as in education, and very little going to help the people the act was intended to help in the first place.
This commission will be allowed to establish fees and, again, that becomes a bit scary. Fees are really just another way of taxing the people of this province, who are already overtaxed. This bill states that the commission's finances must go up for review and get the approval for a multi-year business plan only at times specified by the minister. Is that good judgment on the part of the minister? I don't think so. The commission finances should be reviewed, and they should be held accountable annually for all their spending.
Apparently the commission needs many advisory committees to be established to advise them what to do. Why is that? Will it be because the appointees are the friends of this government and will know nothing about the commission they were appointed to? This commission is large enough. With 24 members, they don't need advisory committees. At the end of the bill, this bill wants to establish yet another committee to evaluate how the commission is functioning. Really, this is just more bureaucracy. Will we then have to appoint another committee to oversee that committee to make sure it is doing its job or that the advisory committees are doing their jobs? These committees are only another expense to the taxpayers of this province. The more I study this bill, the more I can see that bureaucracy is once again on the rampage. It just grows and grows.
The purpose of this bill, hon. Speaker, is to encourage the expansion and coordination of training in any trade or occupation that the commission may designate. I hope that this government will concern itself with why the bill was brought forward, rather than with how many committees they can establish.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I know we're not supposed to recognize the presence of members in the House, but I did want to recognize the presence of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who I earlier mentioned is really the father of this bill that we are debating here this evening.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The parent.
An Hon. Member: This father of this mother of all bills.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member says, the father of this mother of all bills.
Hon. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from the members opposite and the support for the principles we have embodied in this legislation of empowering industry, employees and educators to seize control and responsibility for delivery of apprenticeship and trades training and to really forge new directions in that endeavour. This is leading-edge legislation in this country; this is a way of doing training that I think other provinces will be choosing to imitate.
Finally, I just can't resist commenting on one point. One of the members opposite asked: "Is government getting it right?" And what I would say is: that's not the point. This is the recommendation of employers, of employees and of educators. We -- government -- have but chosen to endorse their design for delivering training and education.
That is the major point here. This is not a "government-designed" bill, not a government-designed commission, not a government-designed way of doing business; this is a way of doing training and apprenticeship that comes from the workforce itself and from the educators who provide training for that workforce. I'm pleased to hear that the members opposite plan to support it on second reading.
With those comments, I move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 43, Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved the adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
The committee met at 6:42 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Hon. P. Priddy: I have just a few opening comments that I'd like to make. They're at least an hour shorter than they were an hour ago, and that's so that people can continue to see the view out the window.
It is with pleasure that I rise in the House to present the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families and to talk about the work of the ministry. Before I begin to do that, I would like to introduce the staff members who are here with me today, and some who are not but who will be with us perhaps tomorrow. They are indeed an important part of this ministry.
To my right is Bob Plecas, the deputy minister; to my left is Thea Vakil, division head for the central operating agency. Other people who will come up as necessary are Diane Johnston, who's the division head for regional support division; Dyan Dunsmoor-Farley, who's the division head for governmental relations; and Wayne Matheson, acting director of child protection. Behind me, because we are beginning with Attorney General, is Alan Markwart.
[ Page 6258 ]
Our commitment is to building in this ministry a child-centred, integrated system that promotes and protects the health development of children and youth, in a system that helps build stronger families and stronger communities. We still have a lot of challenging work ahead of us, but over the last ten months, we've laid down a good solid foundation. We've built a regional structure that gives us the freedom and flexibility to tailor supports to people in different parts of the province, which I think is absolutely unique in the history of this province.
We've engaged individuals, families, community organizations and service providers in helping us plan and develop our services, and we've brought together programs and services that used to be spread across five different ministries. I'll tell you that for many parents, not having to go from ministry to ministry is already making a difference.
One of the really exciting things about our new ministry is just the sheer breadth of services we offer: from child protection to support for adults with developmental disabilities, from school meal programs to youth corrections, and from child care to drug and alcohol programs. Our central goal is to promote and encourage the healthy development of all children, youth and families within strong communities.
Over time, our goal is clearly to see less and less need for uninvited interventions into people's lives. I think we'll all agree, however, that there are times when government has to step in -- dangerous times when children's health, well-being or safety -- and in fact, their very lives -- may be at risk.
[6:45]
When we talk about child protection -- and I'm not going to talk about all the parts of the ministry as I introduce this -- three years ago, Judge Thomas Gove began his investigation into the child protection system of the province. As we all know, his findings were compelling, and we learned through that process that two key changes were needed in the area of child protection.First, the system had to be strengthened, with better training and better tools for social workers and staff who were doing the job in the field with children and families. We're making those improvements. Second, the child protection system has to work in harmony with all the other supports for children and families, and I think that is unique in the history of this province.
We're developing highly specialized teams of child protection experts, and we're linking them in multidisciplinary teams with a range of other professionals. We know that children and their families are complex and unique, and our new child protection risk-assessment model is one of the new tools our social workers are using to assist them in making critical professional judgments that take into account all the family dynamics and influences. After all, these decisions have the power to alter children's and families' lives, sometimes forever. To make sure we're living up to that responsibility, we're establishing a new quality assurance system specifically for our child protection services. In addition, the ministry is developing a process for more effectively responding to complaints and resolving issues at the local level, so people won't always have to take a complaint or a concern to Victoria, because there will be a local way to resolve that.
From a provincewide perspective, the new independent children's commissioner will continue to oversee the ministry's activities and recommend improvements where they're needed, both in her role as commissioner and as chair of the Child and Family Review Board. I believe these checks and balances will help us develop a more open and more accountable system that will earn the public's confidence. We know we need to do that.
We're producing an updated interministry guide to recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect. It clarifies the roles of all professionals whose work involves children, not just in government but in other areas such as the medical profession and the legal profession. It details how they can all work together effectively. We need to make sure that people know what to do and how to help if they think a child may need protection, so we'll be planning a public education campaign this fall that heightens people's awareness around this.
A bit earlier, I mentioned prevention, which people know I feel very strongly about. The goal is to reach a place in our new ministry where fewer children need protective services and where more families can stay together safely. That's why we're building a strategy called Healthy Beginnings, Healthy Lives, which starts even before a child is born.
For six months, we've been working with the public, community agencies, service providers and academics, talking to people around the world -- not just in Canada, but really worldwide -- to get the very best advice we can about this. We want to make sure that every child in this province gets the best possible start in life. That means good prenatal care. It means working closely with new moms and dads -- it's interesting: you often read it, and it just says moms; but new moms and dads -- to help them through what I think is one of the most important times of their lives.
I remember what it was like to come home from the hospital with a new baby. I was a pediatric nurse, so I had the benefit of some of that training and experience. Most moms and dads don't have that, and these little people don't come with instruction manuals. What these parents and children often need is support, someone who has been there, someone who knows what it's like, someone who understands what they're going through and, most of all, someone they can trust.
On average, for every dollar spent on prevention, we save somewhere between $4 and $7 in later costs to society. It's an investment we cannot afford not to make. So while we help to create healthier and happier children and families, we also free up precious time, energy and resources that we can then reinvest in programs and services that are needed. The impact of those successes will be magnified in generations to come.
I want to speak just for a moment, if I can, about aboriginal people. In January our ministry hosted an aboriginal forum, and I had an opportunity to meet many people. I'm always impressed by the courage people have to tell their stories. The history of aboriginal people is unique in British Columbia, and I think we all know that.
Whole generations of young people grew up in residential schools, away from their culture, their language, their communities and their families -- and away from any ability to learn parenting skills, because they weren't in a place where they were parented. It's their stories that are helping us to develop a provincial aboriginal strategy. We've signed agreements with 12 first nations, giving them the tools, the training and the support they need to operate their own child welfare agencies.
[ Page 6259 ]
One of the parts of the ministry I just want to comment on, because sometimes it gets left out a bit, is adults with developmental disabilities. In every part of this province, our new ministry is working to encourage an environment where people are treated with dignity and respect, an environment where people, both as children and as adults, are valued for diversity.
Last November, when the Woodlands institution closed, ours became the first province in this country to successfully make the full transition to community living for adults with developmental disabilities. We're working to create increasingly effective and innovative ways to support people to live as independently as is possible for them. When I look at our success with Community Living, no other province is even close to matching our level of progress. You see, British Columbians share a belief in the value of individuals. We respect their human rights, their dignity, their right to self-determination and, finally, which I think is wonderful, the fact that people with developmental disabilities have something to give to our communities -- not just to receive, but to give. They have a contribution to make.
I want to speak for a moment about consultation. Firsthand community involvement will also be the key to our ministry's success. We have an enormous challenge in front of us. Communities aren't used to being able to have input into how services are developed in their community. In point of fact, we need them too, because we can't do it alone. So we're encouraging people to work closely with us at all levels as we continue the work of building the ministry. I've personally met and spoken with hundreds of individuals -- and if you include staff, it's literally thousands of individuals -- and listened to their stories, their concerns and their ideas. I've met with people who speak both for and with multicultural organizations, people who run transition houses for women and children fleeing domestic violence -- or what I call violence against women -- and with people from child development centres.
Lastly, our regional structure. Probably the most important consultations are the ones that take place closest to our homes, in our neighbourhoods, closest to people's houses, because that's where they live. That's where our services are going to support them. In our ministry, front-line services are now delivered through 20 regional operating agencies, headed by regional operating officers. Each of those agencies is working closely with families, with youth, with local service providers and with other community members to find the very best mix of programs and services, the most practical level of integration to meet the specific needs of the people it serves in that community. And it's different in Fort St. John than it is in Surrey or Abbotsford or Kaslo. Members of this House, I'm sure, appreciate just how large and diverse the province is. In many cases, you are from those diverse and very far-flung parts of the province. Those community needs and challenges vary as widely as our geography. So certainly many basic needs are common to all of us. But serving children and families, as I say, in downtown Vancouver isn't the same as in Fort St. James or Castlegar or Canoe.
So in December, when we hired our regional operating officers, the very first thing we had them do was find out: who were they really serving? Who were the children and families in their communities, and how did they earn their living? Was unemployment a major issue? What was the poverty level? What did it look like? What was the picture of the community? What about the cultural mix? Did a lot of people have English as a second language? The list goes on, and obviously the answers are different for every community. And that's what we expected; that's what we should hear. That's why we're giving the regions maximum flexibility to tailor programs and services to meet the specific needs of the people in their communities.
That work is just getting underway, and when this organizational work is over, each region may end up with a very different mix of programs delivered in a different way. But every region will be guided by three core principles: that the needs of the child come first; that families get the support they need; and that the ministry worker closest to the person has maximum flexibility to make decisions in that person's best interest. Those are three core principles throughout the province.
In conclusion, building this new ministry is, to say the least, a massive challenge. But one of the most gratifying things I have found over the past months is the willingness and enthusiasm of everyone involved, regardless of perspective, to build new partnerships and to find a better way. There's a tremendous sense of optimism in our new ministry. We know the challenges, but we also know the optimism that's there. British Columbians truly want the best for their children, for all of our children. That's what we're working to provide. I would be pleased to take questions.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments. I will start off by saying that I think that myself and the critic team from the opposition had a very good working relationship with your staff and yourself this year. I've appreciated the openness which you've been kind enough to give me.
I view the estimates process as a very important part of government. If I could just explain
That's how I view the estimates process. It's a process that both government and opposition can participate in, which will, hopefully, come to some positive outcomes, and I know the minister has the well-being of children at her heart, and I know that we on this side of the House do, as well.
I sent a letter to the minister suggesting that we might look at the ministry -- because it is new -- as the parts joined the ministry. That may make it easier to look at the ministry, I think, for staff as well as for yourselves and ourselves. Many of the questions we will ask, I think, will only serve as a base for future years, because this is a new ministry. And the questions that are asked this year, on programs and how they're integrated and how the progress as seen to this date, will serve as a base for years to come.
[ Page 6260 ]
The first area that I would like to canvass is the Ministry of Attorney General, and I know the staff are here. When you put a ministry together, I suspect there will be friction and problems. One of the areas that we heard a great deal about was probation officers and the fear of probation officers about having their role diluted, and also having to function in two roles: one, being supportive to a child and a family; and at another time, having to be protective of society and to play that role.
I wonder whether the minister could outline for us what the government is doing to align that job with the new ministry, and whether there is a program to work out those frictions.
Hon. P. Priddy: I will begin, and undoubtedly somebody will pass me something -- particularly when someone thinks I'm wrong.
I want to say to the member opposite
[7:00]
In terms of the transition for youth probation officers, there are a couple of issues. One of them is what people would discuss as, if you will, the philosophical issue of public safety versusOne of them is
Part of the question -- and the member can help me if I'm not correct -- is about what we're doing to adjust those tensions. We have had these discussions -- or certainly my deputy has -- with the youth probation officers. I think there are some who have concerns. There are some, actually, who are quite eager to come, but there are some who still have some concerns. We've said we would work with them to work out the concerns they have and that we would try and find for them additional ways of providing some backfill in resources that they might not have had an opportunity to have before.
In point of fact, we've also waited to do our whole strategic planning for the ministry until those youth probation officers were with us, because we consider them an important part of the ministry. We weren't going to do a strategic plan or vision without them there, because for us, they were important. In terms of the ongoing resolution of it, we will continue, as we would with any staff groupings, to meet as regularly as we need to do to work out the issues.
M. Coell: At this point, how many youth probation officers have actually come into the ministry? Are they actually working in offices with other ministry staff now, or are they still in offices with the adult probation officers?
Hon. P. Priddy: There
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry -- I often do that, and I must apologize. I will apologize now to the Chair, and perhaps I will continue to need to do so as the evening goes on. It's my eagerness to talk about the ministry, and so I sometimes don't wait to be recognized. It's probably the only-child in me, too. With apologies, hon. Chair
There are 122 youth probation officers and 37 additional people who have come into the ministry as administrative support. I think that in most of the regions at this stage, they are still working in the offices in which they have been working all along. I think that's going to vary. People will poke at me if I'm incorrect, but I think that will vary very much in terms of the kind of work they're doing and the communities they're in.
Our space -- how we organize staff -- will be different, depending on where people are, the kind of staff availability there is and also what is appropriate. People have raised concerns about whether it is appropriate for certain kinds of youth to go into certain offices if you've got little kids there or whatever. We will also give consideration in terms of placement to those issues, too. At this stage, I'm not actually aware that any have moved, unless it's just a few. Oh, it's just a few, I'm told.
M. Coell: There was some concern in the north of the province, where you might have one or two probation officers serving a vast area, that they would be moved out of that office and possibly deal only with youth, whereas they are dealing now with youth and adults at the same time. I wonder if the ministry has considered that, and whether they would be dealing with those smaller offices in a different way than they would down here.
Hon. P. Priddy: You know, I shouldn't leap up so quickly with the answers, just in case it might be wrong and somebody might wish to correct me.
In rural communities, we know that probation officers have carried out a variety of functions. It's not just probation, by the way, but family court counselling and things that aren't actually probation or necessarily part of their training. With the separation of the two areas, there have been concerns expressed; as I say, we realize that particularly in the smaller offices. Where it's required, local administrative arrangements will be made with the Ministry of Attorney General. We had and continue to have these conversations, and I think we are reasonably comfortable with that. I just read an article in someone's regional newspaper yesterday -- but now I can't remember where from -- saying that the transition is actually going quite smoothly, because we're trying with the Attorney
[ Page 6261 ]
General to ensure that there's no disruption in service to smaller communities -- like, we may continue to share a youth probation officer for a period of time.
Over time I think it's expected that there may be a greater, not a lesser, degree of youth probation services to smaller communities. For example, there are some small communities like Fort St. James that have nobody at all, so we envision that there will actually be more services to them, not less. Until we're sure that it's covered, we'll be working hand in hand with the Attorney General to make sure that happens smoothly.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many youth would be involved with those 122 youth POs. What would be the total caseload?
Hon. P. Priddy: On any particular day, if you will, there are 5,800 youth under some form of community supervision. If you're asking about caseload, it's currently about 50 cases per youth probation officer in the province.
M. Coell: Does the ministry have any plans for either reducing or increasing the number of youth probation officers? I'll ask another question, as well. If they are increased or decreased, would you be expecting them to have a different level of training than the people you have now -- an increase in child protection skills
Hon. P. Priddy: There would be no intention to reduce, and it certainly would be my intention to fight for more resources. I know that in parts of the province currently -- this has nothing to do with the transfer -- there's often no backup. If people go on holidays, there isn't anybody to back them up. So it would be my intention to try and at least find some more resources, if I can, to be able to provide some backup for holidays.
In terms of training, I don't think the actual training for youth probation officers will be different, but we do want to start to introduce all of our team members -- they're multidisciplinary teams -- to some additional skills from other professions, because that's what multidisciplinary teams are about.
M. Coell: My understanding is that the educational background of probation officers varies. I wonder whether you keep the same sort of records you have shared with us on social workers. Do you have the number of people with BAs, MAs and BSWs?
Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have the same accessibility to the information that we have for social workers. But my staff who work in the field all the time inform me that it is likely that most people will have a BA and that there will be some people working out there who have an MA. So you are unlikely, I am told, to see people who have less than a BA. That does not mean there may not be some, but that's what it looks like.
M. Coell: It may be the case that some of the probation officers don't have the child protection training skills that are now prerequisites in the ministry. Is there a program to assess and train these people? Also, are they going to be using the risk assessment tool?
Hon. P. Priddy: There is not a plan at this stage in terms of the existing staff to go out and assess everybody and say: "This is where you are and what you might need." But beginning in the fall, we will be putting in cross-training around risk assessment for all of the staff that have joined the ministry, including youth probation officers.
M. Coell: Is there a time frame for the training in risk assessment for these 122 people and for implementation?
Hon. P. Priddy: In my eagerness, I always want it to have been yesterday, so I always want to check the time. We expect that the training would be finished by mid-fall -- we would hope. The training we have been looking at for agencies, for multidisciplinary teams and so on is a two- or three-day training package.
M. Coell: Would it be possible for us to get a copy of the training package? I don't need it tonight, but once it's developed.
[7:15]
Hon. P. Priddy: Of course.M. Coell: One of the areas I have had some concern about is whether the probation officers who aren't sharing an office with a multidisciplinary team are going to feel part of the team or whether they're going to feel that they just report to a different minister but that their job hasn't changed. I think the hope was that their job would indeed change, and their philosophical approach to the job would join that of the multidisciplinary team. Does the minister see any problem with not having them join the team? I guess there's another side to that, too, that we could talk about.
Hon. P. Priddy: You're right. You can look at two sides of this. But no, our intention would be
M. Coell: One of the areas -- and I think we may have canvassed it in last year's Social Services estimates -- is the ability for the computers of the Attorney General to actually talk to the computers from and even send an e-mail
[ Page 6262 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: The staff who have already actually moved over, which is some number of them, are integrated into the whole system. For the staff who have not yet moved over, we do have a plan with the Attorney General to make sure that it happens smoothly. But obviously our goal in the ministry -- it's easier said than done, but nevertheless the plan is underway -- is that everybody has access. That has been the whole problem all along -- that ministries can't talk to ministries, that the protocols are different, the information is different or the base is different. At this stage, some of those staff are already over, and they have that ability. For the rest, we're working with the AG to make sure it happens smoothly.
M. Coell: To me, with a new way to manage a caseload and with new players also involved, that is a crucial part if people aren't going to be in the same office. In many instances, you're probably better off not having the Attorney General's staff and the probation office people in the same offices in the smaller communities, because there are as many positives as negatives. I would be comforted to know that that's happening as soon as possible.
The other area in regard to probation officers, and it's a concern I think they have, is promotion and how they fit into the structure of government. Are they going to have as many opportunities for advancement now that they're in a different system? I think that was one we've addressed, but I don't know whether the ministry is addressing how you fit these people in who have had a totally different hierarchy or structure as to where they would go professionally, and now they're in a different system.
Hon. P. Priddy: In point of fact, there will be opportunities. They will be based, as they are with many other people -- all others, I guess -- on skills, experience and so on. I'm informed that there are several probation officers who are now supervisors of integrated services offices. They have gained the skills. They've done additional courses and so on that have given them the skills to be able to do that, and they're now managing integrated services offices. So yes, there will be opportunities for youth probation officers.
M. Coell: I wonder if we could turn to the crime prevention programs and alternative measures-diversion programs. We have some questions on those.
V. Anderson: Just going back to one point on the probation officers and the mixed people on the teams, have they had any informal meeting opportunities to meet and get to know other people who are cross-working with them in the areas? What's happening at the moment? I know that in the past everybody has worked independently.
Hon. P. Priddy: Absolutely. You never want to say that every single solitary person has -- and I've certainly learned never to say that every single solitary anything has -- but yes, actually, there have been lots of opportunities to do that. In many communities, they're already working as teams.
The member made an interesting comment earlier that I want to follow up on, because I think he's correct. In a small community, the need to be co-located isn't as great, either. The distances aren't as great, so you can deal with that differently.
But yes, they are. From some of the probation officers I've spoken with, that's the first time they've had a chance to do that. They're not only actually finding this to be an interesting opportunity, but they're also actually seeing how their skills are valued at a table amongst a whole group of professionals that they haven't had a chance to work with before.
V. Anderson: I raise this with regard to probation officers, but it's probably true of others in a different way. I think most studies have indicated that people tend to be in professional groupings familywise, and it's not only the officer, but also the spouse and the children who get categorized in the community, particularly in urban areas.
When we're dealing with children and families, have we thought of dealing with the children and families of those people who work as adults in the system? I raise that particularly because, with the youth alcohol programs, what we discovered is that the focus on families
I'm wondering what's being done in the family orientation of relating the families as well as the individual workers, because we are social persons, family persons, as well as professional persons.
Hon. P. Priddy: You may have to help me more with the question, but let me try, and then you'll let me know if I need more help.
I think it's an interesting question. I think you can raise it about any grouping of staff. I think that I, at least, would be particularly concerned if people are looking at a hierarchy of who's who at the table, if you will. That's when it becomes really important that there isn't some sort of isolation between: "This is this group of workers and families, and this is another group of workers and families." I would say to you that
An Hon. Member: Don't encourage questions -- is that it?
Hon. P. Priddy: No. It says here: "Talk a lot longer."
In one of the offices in Victoria somebody was
In regards to your question about if we have thought about family mixes, not that I'm aware of at this stage.
V. Anderson: Maybe I can just follow that with one other comment. They can't kick me, since I'm not sitting too close.
One of the things I discovered, for instance
[ Page 6263 ]
time and understood each other perfectly, because they were talking one set of language that they understood and were very much a part of. When they went back into the church, they were into a different church group language, and they misunderstood each other.
It seems to me that we all get caught up in professional language and professional terminology, but when we start dealing with our own families, then we start using our family language with each other, which then helps us deal with "our clients," because they're also family persons and parts of families. It makes a difference in how we approach them or how we understand them as family persons, as we see ourselves as family persons. The way we treat ourselves professionally is also the way we treat our clients -- unconsciously -- professionally with the language, rather than as a person who belongs to a family. It seems to me the Children and Families ministry is very important in that area. I'll leave that one for the moment.
The other one I want to ask about
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not aware that it is at this stage. There are certainly a number -- as I think you're probably aware -- of community panels, where offenders meet with community panels. I think that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and I share at this stage -- do we? -- an MP who was actually very involved in the beginning of community panels: that is, Chuck Cadman.
But in terms of peers, there have been people looking at how to do this. There have been a few issues raised around confidentiality of information that you sort of give out to peers. There is some research being done on it, but there is nothing, as yet, that is an up-and-running research project, if you will.
V. Anderson: Just one other thing I'd ask about. When you're talking about community involvement -- which is very much what you stress here -- has there been anything done in trying to integrate with local community recreational programs? Recreation is one of the biggest facets for people, both inside and outside, when you've had difficulties.
Let me use the illustration of a fellow who was in his twenties and came out of jail and came to me at the church one day and said: "What do I do? If I go back to my old friends, I'm in trouble; the police pick me up. If I go to the beer parlour, I'm in trouble; the police pick me up. If I go to the library, I'm loitering. And if I go home, I go crazy." And he was quite serious: "What do I do?" He hadn't had the opportunity to integrate into basketball or community teams, or to feel at home, because of the uncertainties. If that could happen while they're in process, then automatically you'd go out into that kind of activity. And that's my final comment for the moment.
[7:30]
Hon. P. Priddy: There are a couple of different kinds of examples. I understand your point. If you don't sort of get into it while you're in the process, when you're finished, you haven't established those skills.With a number of youths in the province, particularly those who have some fairly intensive supervision going on, there is a fair bit of interaction, actually, with recreation programs. I agree with you, by the way, that it's one of the critical components -- and actually Morton talked about that in her report to the Premier. But there are a number of youths, and I can't tell you numbers
There are a few more systemic ones, like Night Hoops, the after-hours basketball programs. Our experience, so far -- and I would not say it's very vast -- is that if you get someone involved on a one-on-one basis during their probation or during that supervision time, then the chance is more likely that they will keep that up afterwards.
V. Anderson: I've got one other to ask. I've had young people working with me on a number of occasions in church who were out on community service. One of the things that wasn't happening during that program -- at that time at least -- was an orientation to the agencies or the groups that they were working with, or sitting down with the team and the young person and the others, so that there was a common understanding between everybody about what was going on, to make it much more productive. It was kind of -- or it could have been if you didn't have the right skills
Hon. P. Priddy: There are two things. One of them is that if that was the situation in which you have seen people, that's not acceptable. I mean, the orientation should happen. My experience in life before government or in other lives -- I always feel like Shirley MacLaine when I use that term -- has actually been that people have gotten very good orientation. I've been involved in programs for riding for kids with disabilities where youth have been doing community hours and have had really good orientation, have stayed with the program afterwards and have really felt that they were part of that group in making that contribution. So I think that it is not acceptable if it does not happen, because it isn't really about checking your form off and handing it in. It is also about feeling like you're part of the group and making a contribution. So it should be happening in all circumstances. I guess if it is not, we need to look at ways that we can ensure that it does.
M. Coell: One of the first times, I guess, a youth will come in contact with the Attorney General ministry, and now with your ministry, will be with the community diversion programs that are in place -- usually negotiated through the courts, their parents and themselves as to what they're going to do. Is your ministry going to track young people now to see whether they reoffend? I'm thinking of how you can judge your success. You've now got someone into the system; you've identified them. You also now have a whole bunch more resources to help that young person not reoffend. I just wonder what new programs, if any, are going to be available to that child and how they're going to be integrated.
Hon. P. Priddy: Two things: one of them is that we do
[ Page 6264 ]
a great baseline; it's there. You could use it as some sort of starting place, if you will. One thing is that we certainly will be following youth. I don't think there's a different way of tracking as it relates to the youth probation officers, or that particular part. Obviously you've got to track for -- what? -- two years, three years, four years, five years, depending on when the youth first came into contact with the justice system.
But under our central agency, Vaughan Dowie -- who is in charge of audit and evaluation performance -- is looking at all of those issues of what the markers are for us, not just in this program but in programs across our new ministry. How are we going to be able to track that? What are the markers going to be? How are we going to be able to see progress? I think it's more likely to come from that piece than
Sometimes one has to correct oneself or say that one didn't hear correctly -- or that one wasn't wearing one's glasses. I'm actually told that the baseline is a fairly good baseline and is one of the best in Canada. Well, see how consistent that answer was. There has been tracking going on, at least in British Columbia, for over 20 years. That wasn't something that I was aware of.
M. Coell: I think there's an opportunity for the new ministry to be able to measure its success, because my understanding is that once a youth is involved in a diversion program, there hasn't been follow-up with the child protection workers, with the social workers, with a whole range of other diversion programs. They sometimes just finish their program, go on and might come back into the system and haven't had to really change any. So I'm pleased to hear that you've got a baseline to work from. I think there are some real positives there.
The other area that is of some interest is the outreach programs, and I'm thinking of the alternative schools. I know the minister and I have both had a flood of correspondence from some of the schools in this area, in that the ministry is transferring counsellors from the secondary schools into the elementary schools. I would be interested in hearing the logic of that and what they're doing to protect the programs at the senior level that seem to be successful.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sure if I'm wrong somebody will give me something here.
Interestingly enough, the program that you and I have received letters about is one of the few in the province. Those sort of counsellors in alternate schools aren't programs that are necessarily available in other kinds of school districts. The school district that your hon. colleague and I come from doesn't have anything like that. The only counsellors available in schools are those provided by the Ministry of Education, which I, of course, consider to be highly appropriate.
The Ministry of Education, however, provides no counselling at an elementary school level. So that is why, in the capital region, the school districts that got together made a decision -- and I realize there's been some difficulty with the decision -- to move at least four of those counsellors into the elementary schools where there were none. Actually, in the other school districts in the capital region, most of the counsellors are in elementary schools and not in high schools. I think in your school district they are almost all in the elementary schools and not in the high schools at all.
When we know that there are not unending resources and we know that the earlier you can intervene or support a child or a youth with an issue, the less likely it is to be a bigger one by the time they get to be 13, 14 or 15
M. Coell: I would agree; I think it's an important aspect of elementary schools. I'm pleased to hear also that they're going to re-evaluate the lack of counsellors in the senior schools.
I wonder if the minister could tell me how many community-based outreach crime prevention programs there are in the new ministry.
Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the number of outreach programs that actually are within the new ministry, there are not a lot. There are a few; there are some. Most of the programs stayed with the Attorney General; the gang outreach programs -- the performing arts that go around to the schools and work on gangs -- have all stayed with the Attorney General ministry. Unless we have an opportunity to do more development in that area, the majority of the programs have stayed with the Attorney General, including the gang line. I've been told that as it relates to gangs, many of the members actually are now tending to be older than youth; they are adults now.
M. Coell: That's interesting. I wasn't aware that those programs had stayed with the Attorney General. I suppose there's some logic to that, too, if they're dealing with youth involved in gang violence and crime.
One of the areas that came to my attention a couple of times in the last year was youth on the street who were involved in crime. I know we've been dealing with recovery houses with the Ministry of Human Resources. But there are youth hostels, and I just wonder if there going to be any changes in how those programs are administered under the new program. You have bail supervision, where youth attend court and then go directly to be supervised. Will that program stay the same, or is that staying with the Attorney General as well?
Hon. P. Priddy: Youth bail hostels, actually, are staying with us. A point I should have made earlier -- and people have reminded me of it, and I thank them for that -- is that part of the reason that some of the youth gang programs have stayed with the Attorney General is because of the link with the police. Therefore it made more sense from that perspective.
M. Coell: How many bail hostels do we have active in the province? I want to talk about the training of people who run them, as well.
[7:45]
Hon. P. Priddy: This is an area I have a bit less familiarity with, so I'm needing to check a bit more.I cannot tell you the number of facilities. What I can tell you is that there are about 200 placements. They are not necessarily all used all the time for bail hostels. They can be
[ Page 6265 ]
used for that; they can also be used for youth on probation. The purpose of those 200 placements may not be the same all of the time each day of the year. About 20 percent are used for bail hostel placements.
M. Coell: My recollection is that they can be a private home or a group home. The ministry is now training
Hon. P. Priddy: Rather than try and give you a long rhetorical answer which has no content, I'll just tell you the truth, which would seem to sort of be an interesting way to go about it. That is an area that we don't have a plan for at this stage. You are quite right; we have reviewed a whole variety of other kinds of services, and the training
It's not one that we have a plan for yet. I appreciate your raising that. There may be other people working on it that are not able to provide me with that answer tonight. But we will do two things. I will check and see if there is actually any work going on in that area -- and there actually may not be. Secondly, we'll make the commitment that we will examine that and ensure that that happens, along with training for other privately contracted facilities.
M. Coell: I appreciate that. One of the reasons I brought it up, and we can maybe deal with it later in the week, is the Arden Park ranch, and the disaster that that was. So I think there's an opportunity there -- if we are going to place children who are in our care into these facilities -- to look at them. So I am pleased to hear the minister say that she will undertake to do that.
Are the community work service agreements with this ministry, or are they with the Attorney General? I'm trying to draw a line as to what stayed with the Attorney General and what came to the new ministry with regard to programs for troubled youth -- or youth in trouble with the law, more likely.
Hon. P. Priddy: Those are with us. Almost everything from the Attorney General came over, except the crime prevention outreach and gang outreach kind of activities. Almost everything else came over to this ministry, including those programs.
M. Coell: There are two types of custody that I want to look at, one being non-residential attendance in programs. Those programs would be anything from day program counselling -- some of them are actually involved in the alternative schools, I know
Hon. P. Priddy: I think I can do it sequentially; let me try. Yes, they are with us, but we actually expect them to expand. I think one of the opportunities that is provided to us now that would have been much more difficult before is to be able to provide complementary or augmentative services, or whatever phrase you care to use -- like alcohol and drug, or mental health support. That wasn't there before. There was a custodial residential program. It was a residential program, but it didn't have the ability to have all of those other programs in the ministry that would also support the youth. So first, we see it as a big advantage in terms of being able to support those youth with additional programs. And second, we see them as expanding.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that, because there are two types of, I guess, residential care for youth who have been sentenced. One is the residential centres that we have in the province -- the few of those -- and then this other one. The other one allows the family to keep together and can integrate some counselling. The minister may wish to expand on it.
It would appear that the new ministry would have a lot more resources to offer a family than they did prior, where you might just have had a person living at home and having to attend a program during the day, and that was the only program they attended. I just wonder how those programs -- and maybe you could outline some of those programs for me -- are going to be integrated in the new ministry.
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. member, I'm not sure I have the question. Could you ask again, please?
M. Coell: I'm sorry. Of the two types of programs, one I'm more acquainted with is the residential care facility, where there are programs all day, all night. They sleep there, live there and serve out their sentence. The other one is that they're sentenced to complete a program, but they're sentenced to stay at home and live at home. Those are the programs that I can see as being beneficial, expanded. As the minister said, they intend to expand those programs.
I just wonder if we could look at those types of programs and how the new ministry is going to add to them. What programs would be added to those from, really, a vast battery of programs that you now have and that the Attorney General didn't have?
Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot describe -- it does not exist at this stage, and I'm not sure it will -- additional new programs that get added to that. But what I think is the tremendous benefit is that
But secondly, they have more help to access the programs. The parent or the youth doesn't have to go around searching from place to place to try and find out: "Is there a pre-employment program over here that makes sense, then a skill-upgrading program over there? Can I get some alcohol and drug programs over here?" So, as opposed to new pro-
[ Page 6266 ]
grams, it has to do with widening the array that youth have to choose from, which they did not have before, and having a multidisciplinary team that can coordinate it for that youth and their family, which they did not have before, either.
M. Coell: I agree. It's a better use of the programs that we've got now, not necessarily an increase of programs. That would bring me back to the question I had about computers before. Many of these non-residential attendance programs probably aren't hooked into the same sort of computer and communications systems that the ministry will have. So that may be something, as well as the other area, that you might wish to look at.
The other area I want to look at is the youth custody centres. They're scattered throughout the province. I wonder if you could tell me how many youth we have in those centres as of this month and the number of staff we have in those centres, as well.
Hon. P. Priddy: On an annual base, it's about 400 youth in custody. I knew that part. I had to check the staff part -- about 500 staff.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me
Hon. P. Priddy: The youth custody figure for institutional is almost $29 million.
[8:00]
M. Coell: Has there been anyHon. P. Priddy: I knew I could do Victoria. But I had to check, because
There are some minor projects, sort of minor enhancements, going ahead in a variety of places. But we're bringing a capital plan this fall. We have a feasibility study to look at expanding the Victoria Youth Custody Centre -- I expect you've probably been there -- and to the law court.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Not necessarily as
The family law court, I think you
M. Coell: I have been in that juvenile detention centre many times -- as a social worker, I might add. [Laughter.]
Hon. P. Priddy: I didn't ask.
M. Coell: Actually, I can tell you that in 1979 I was there a number of times, when I worked for the heroin treatment program. It was overcrowded then, and that's pretty close to 20 years ago. My recollection is that there have been no major expansions other than
To the Vancouver area custodial centres, is there any change planned in the upcoming year?
Hon. P. Priddy: When we bring forward the capital plan in the fall, it will also include some changes for Vancouver. We're already actually into the feasibility study for the Victoria one -- at least, the work in that area is further along. In the capital plan, we will bring forward ones for Vancouver as well, but the Victoria planning is further ahead.
M. Coell: That's very positive.
I believe the area of psychological services for youth who have been in trouble with the law or found guilty of an offence has come over to your ministry. Are those services going to be integrated throughout offices, or will they be integrated with the probation offices, which would be separate from the other parts of your ministry?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, both psychiatric and psychological services have come over to us, and yes, there will be some degree of integration. At this stage, I think
The only other information I would be able to provide, if the member would wish it -- or we can simply give it to him -- is some information actually about numbers -- you know, numbers of government employees and contracted agencies, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc., that are available, the number of youth in assessment who are actually in active treatment, and so on. But beyond my earlier comment that there will be some integration and that they have come over to us, I don't think I have anything to add. If you would like the numbers, we'd be happy to provide them to you.
M. Coell: I'd be interested in knowing how much is spent on sessional psychological services and how many psychologists would be employed by the ministry.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think this is a piece of information that if the member would not mind, I will need to get back to him on. What I do have is the amount of the mental health psychiatric budget, but I don't have the rest of it. I'd actually rather prefer to get back to you with all our information. We'll do that tomorrow if that's satisfactory to you.
[ Page 6267 ]
M. Coell: That's fine. What I'm looking for is that in the new ministry, you have had sessional psychologists come over into the ministry. I guess what I'm interested in is how much of their time they're spending on youth in custody and whether they're
Hon. P. Priddy: We'll get that for you for tomorrow.
M. Coell: The other area that I know we've had some discussion on is legal fees paid by the ministry in dealing with appeals and court cases. I wonder whether the minister, in the breakdown of the budget, has the amount of money spent on legal fees by the ministry now. I know it's probably
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm told that for this year, the total for all of the ministries is expected to be about $7 million.
M. Coell: Does the minister have a breakdown as to how much of that is spent on appeals that the ministry initiates? I'm thinking of child apprehension appeals more than anything else.
Hon. P. Priddy: Because we have no other way to do this, what we're doing is basing this on past experience by looking at other estimates. Now, we can give that to you, but that's actually all we have at this stage to be able to project with -- the estimates of other ministries from past years. So that we would be able to give you.
M. Coell: I may have some other questions for the Attorney General part of your ministry, and I know there's a couple of other members who do. I would be happy to move on to the programs brought in from the Ministry of Social Services. If you need a change of staff, I'll give you a moment.
[8:15]
One of the areas I have some interest in looking at is seeing how many children we're providing in-home respite care for that have come over to the ministry. I'm using that as kind of a baseline for what services are provided in-home.The Chair: With the committee's agreement, we will just take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 8:16 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: We do have staff on the way, and I do apologize for people having to wait.
The hon. member wished to begin with questions around in-home respite care and the kinds of services provided. Although we have someone with more expertise -- I should say, with apologies, whose niche area it is -- I think we can manage a number of those questions. The person in charge of adoption is about five minutes away, so if you want to start with respite, I think we can do that.
M. Coell: The ministry really has a multitude of in-home care programs for children: family care homes, residential care, respite care, homemakers. It's sometimes difficult
I think we might start with family care homes. This is a living arrangement that closely represents a family. I just wonder how many of those we have in the province, and maybe we'll start with that.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are about 3,500 family care homes in the province.
M. Coell: Is that including foster care homes, or is that on top of foster care homes?
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to check. When you ask about family care homes, are you including foster homes and other sorts of
[8:30]
M. Coell: Yes.Hon. P. Priddy: We're trying to add them up, because they are different categories. I'm just trying to give you the correct number in that respect. In terms of family care homes that are foster homes, for the sake of the way we would define them, there are 3,163. If you then talk about specialized family care homes, there are 1,363, giving a total of 4,526.
M. Coell: Would that include the restricted and regular family care homes, as well -- all of those?
Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct.
M. Coell: These homes -- including foster, specialized, restricted and regular -- all deal with youth and children, some with mental or physical handicaps. I'm just wondering how
Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. It does differ in terms of the complexity, if you will, of the children that are being cared for. But for someone who is applying for a regular family care home, there is pretraining and then an additional 18 to 20 hours of training for the regular family care. Then, when the complexity of the child is greater, there's additional training required. For instance, it may be training around children who have multiple handicaps or children with fetal alcohol syndrome and so on. That then becomes a different, additional level of training.
We've also, by the way, just signed an agreement. We're not trying to steal anybody's thunder, because we actually haven't said this publicly yet and the associations wanted to do this, but we have signed an agreement with the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations around developing and implementing required foster parent training. It will actually be run over a two-year period. Year one is developing a basic training program that is consistent and required for all foster parents, regardless of the child they're
[ Page 6268 ]
caring for. Then year two is developing and implementing required training modules for each level of what you called specialized family care training.
M. Coell: I suspect that group homes and some of the other more specialized residential homes would be over and above this. I can give you an example. I remember that when Glendale was closing down, many of the staff opened up group homes. They liked their jobs. They liked working with the people they were working with, and they came with quite specialized training. Many of them were registered practical nurses, health care workers or child care workers, so there was a base of training there. I just wonder: if a new group home were to start up, what are the qualifications for those people to start up a group home? Is there a minimum or maximum that they would have to have? I'll leave it at that.
Hon. P. Priddy: Just before I answer that, I want to go back for a moment, if I can. I talked about year one and year two of our new agreement around training, with year one being basic training and year two being specialized training, and I didn't turn the page. Year three will be reviewing very specialized family care assessment tools and incorporating required training modules. Then, a year after that, there will be certification required of all foster parents. This is a new training agreement with the foster parents, and I just want to add this information to that.
I want to be sure I have the hon. member's question. When you asked about opening a group home, I guess it depends very much on what kind of group home. If it's a group home, for instance, for the people in your example who left Glendale or Tranquille or Woodlands or whichever facility we're used to, is that the kind of example you're talking about?
M. Coell: Yes.
Hon. P. Priddy: I actually think I can answer this, but I'd better check first. I stand to be corrected by someone else at some stage, but let me do this -- only because I'm actually doing this from experience, as opposed to the notes.
If you're opening up a group home for people with disabilities, while I guess we would really like to say that everybody should have the two-year program from Douglas College or Cariboo College -- you know, the places where the human service worker program is offered -- they graduate 25 people a year, so it's not always possible to be totally staffed in that way.
But in opening up the group home, the health licensing people, as well as our staff in the regions who are granting the contracts, look at the qualifications of the organization that is actually going to sponsor it. They look at the qualifications of the supervisor who would be in charge of running that group home, which is unlikely to be for more than four people, and then what kind of in-service training people are prepared to offer to staff who do not come with the two-year college program.
Much as I would wish it to be different, I know -- and I've tried to do hiring in the north -- that it's often not possible to have people with two-year programs. So you say to people that this is the kind of in-service training they must provide on an ongoing basis until their staff is up to date.
M. Coell: The point I'm trying to make is that with that number of staff dealing fairly intimately with children, they could be the only people the children see for 24 hours. One of Gove's recommendations is to make sure things are integrated, checked up on and watched closely. With the new structure with the 20 regions, are the group homes, the restricted care homes, specialized homes going to be managed in the region or managed centrally?
Hon. P. Priddy: They will be managed regionally.
M. Coell: The process for managing them, and there are many
Hon. P. Priddy: In each region and depending on the size of the region, there will be one, if not two, resource offices where there will be supervisors and staff whose responsibility is to liaise with those residential facilities. On top on that, both for children and certainly in group homes for people with disabilities, each of the people who live there has their own social worker.
In my experience, at least with group homes for people with disabilities, those social workers are actually quite actively involved with the people in the home on a reasonably regular basis. In the case of the foster homes and restricted family care and so on, the resource office and the supervisors and staff will be the people responsible for monitoring and managing, but so will the social workers who have responsibility for each of the individuals who live there.
M. Coell: The social workers are now going to be using a risk assessment tool. Will the supervisors in the group home be involved in that in any way? If so, how would they be involved?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they will be. While social workers have obviously had the main training and the main responsibility for the risk assessment model, we will be giving risk assessment training, beginning this fall, to all the people in all the agencies with which we contract. If you're a supervisor in a group home, for instance, then you will be part of a two-day or three-day training for the risk assessment model.
If there is a requirement to do a risk assessment model, the social worker is clearly a critical collateral person in gathering the information about that individual. You could not possibly do a risk assessment model without fairly intimate information from the supervisor of the group home who sees that person virtually
[8:45]
M. Coell: The other residential care element that we want to touch on is foster care. I know the ministry is involved in a task force at this point. We might spend some time talking about the task force and about the outcomes and processes they're using, but also look at foster care as it is now. I'll turn it over to my colleague.B. McKinnon: I must say that I am pleased to get these estimates underway. In dealing with foster parenting, if I were
[ Page 6269 ]
to decide to become a foster parent, what sort of screening process would I have to go through to make sure that I have all the qualifications and that I'm not going to abuse children and that type of thing?
Hon. P. Priddy: One of the things we would ask you to do is a CPIC, or a police check. We have all discussed the pros and cons of police checks, but they're one tool. As the member knows, it gives you convictions, but it doesn't give you charges. Nevertheless, you would have to go through a police check. My experience, actually, with police checks is that while they only show convictions
We would also ask you to go through a pre-service orientation to see if you are interested and why and what the reasons are that you want to do this. We would ask for a medical check from your medical practitioner about your physical ability and mental ability to do the job and to manage the job. We would do a prior-contact check on you to see if you have had any previous contact with the ministry. We would ask for three personal references, including one from a relative. We'd ask for a written medical assessment from a physician that includes questions about both mental health and the ability to foster.
It is about eight to 12 hours for the five lessons and the pre-orientation you would have to go through. There would then have to be a study of your home and all the household residents. I think that's particularly important. At one stage, that was not done. It was simply the one or two main people, but now it is all the people who are in the residence. The study we would do on your home would require a minimum of one interview with each member of the family individually and as a group just to see why people want to do it and if the whole family is interested in doing it -- if people want to do this as an entire family. So as a beginning -- beyond training after approval, which you would also have to go through -- that would be your first steps, if you will.
B. McKinnon: Once a person becomes a foster parent, does the ministry do any other checks on them as they continue to foster the children over the years? Do you do regular checkups on them?
Hon. P. Priddy: It happens in two ways. One, there is ongoing monitoring and review. We expect an annual home review. Now, you know, I stand here and say that this is the requirement. I'm sure you can probably go and find me someone who hasn't had an annual home review, but that is the expectation. And we are being very clear with our staff that there is, at the minimum, an expectation of an annual home review, plus a visit with the child. This is something fairly new, and I think it's very important. A visit with the child at least every three months, who is interviewed away from
Once every child has a plan of care, some children who are there for long lengths of time may not need to see their social worker as frequently. There are children with plans of care that may need to see the social worker on a monthly basis, because they have a very comprehensive plan of care. That's some of the ongoing monitoring and review. But we would also require that you do additional training, depending on the child or children you were looking after and the kind of work you were doing. So that would be an additional requirement, as well.
B. McKinnon: So when a foster parent gets into the more specialized care -- looking after the children with problems and that
Hon. P. Priddy: Again, wishing to be as truthful as possible, whenever a new child is placed in a foster home
B. McKinnon: The reason that question came to me is the experience we had with Baby J. and what happened in the case of that family. With the shortage, or what I perceive to be a shortage, in foster parents for the number of children that are apprehended, people who are foster parents may not get the break they need. They do have that stress, and there comes a breaking point. So I thought the question was very important that these people are checked every once in a while to make sure that their stress level isn't ready to pop.
Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. Nobody should be forced to take someone when they're not ready and they've had a fairly stressful experience as a foster parent. Again, I'm sure you can find examples of where that has not happened, so I wouldn't try and suggest that that's not the case. But it absolutely should be the case. And if people need a month or two months or three months or whatever it is to sort of regroup within their own family, then that's what they should be entitled to have.
B. McKinnon: So every child that enters into a foster home will come to that foster home with a plan of care that will include a risk assessment. And just so that I'm clear on this, is the risk assessment for the caregiver or for the child? I mean, is the risk assessment done both on the child and on the home? I'm just trying to get clear on it. It's my understanding that every child entering a foster home will come with a plan of care that will include a risk assessment, and I'm just not sure who that is for: the child or the foster home.
[ Page 6270 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: The risk assessment is done for the child. I mean, the risk assessment is done to make a decision in the first place about where a child needs to be and whether that child needs to be out of their family at that particular time. It's not done for the receiving family, if that's the question.
I do want to mention one thing. I'm not sure if you were here at the time or not -- oh yes, you were. I talked earlier about our new agreement: Foster Care 2000. One of the commitments we have made in this document we are signing with them is that we will work with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to enhance the availability of relief for foster parents. Part of the issue that you speak to is just that raising children is hard, regardless. And if children have been removed from their home, it's even harder, for lots of reasons. Therefore that foster parent does need the availability of respite, and that's one of the things that we've agreed to and signed that we will be working on with the foster parent association.
B. McKinnon: How does the ministry protect foster parents who take violent children or children with violent tendencies into their homes and care for them? Those children, especially if they are older children, could do a lot of harm to a parent. I was just wondering if the ministry has any ways that they try and help protect the foster parents themselves.
[9:00]
Hon. P. Priddy: I love it when I look at the deputy's face and I can see him going: "Go here, but don't go there." And therefore, of course, I do the opposite.In terms of youth
First, the receiving family knows as much about that individual ahead of time as possible. We have read stories in the papers of years past, where youth have been placed, and the receiving family have not been told all of the information and might have said no if they had known all of the information. So first is to make sure that the receiving family knows as much as possible about the youth before they make that decision, without breaking some kind of confidence.
Second, we provide additional child care workers who can be outside the home with that youth. I was going to say that it's generally a youth, but these days that's not always true. It's often somebody who's 10 or 11 or 12, not somebody who's 14 or 15. But we try and use child care workers as much as we can and as many hours a week as we can, particularly with those youngsters, in order to provide some relief for the foster family, but also to provide some activity outside the home for that individual.
B. McKinnon: Are foster homes allowed to become eligible for workers compensation? If they are injured through looking after these children, are they eligible for workers compensation, and if not, why not?
Hon. P. Priddy: At this stage, it is one of the issues that is being talked about with the B.C. foster parents. I know that groups are addressing this with the task force. At this stage, WCB coverage is optional for foster parents, but they would have to purchase that on their own. Even that is new. But now -- I think two years ago now -- they are eligible to purchase WCB coverage. I did check, and I'm sorry that I can't remember the number -- I haven't looked at it in a while -- of how much that is per family. I don't think it is a lot. But it is optional; we don't say that they must. But it is an ongoing discussion currently.
B. McKinnon: If, say, a foster parent did buy this workers compensation coverage, do they have to have their homes inspected before they get this? Do you have any idea on that?
Hon. P. Priddy: I would prefer to get back to the member with the answer, if I could, but I think it is yes. If Workers Compensation is going to cover a worksite, then my understanding has always been that they are going to want an inspection of the site. But as opposed to the minister giving you her opinion or a little bit of her experience, we will actually give you a real answer tomorrow, if that's okay.
B. McKinnon: What sort of cost is involved for a child to go into a foster home? What sort of costs does the ministry put out per child? I imagine it differs depending on stability or what the child has. I would also like to know what the whole foster program costs you per year.
Hon. P. Priddy: It will just take us a minute for these figures, if you could just bear with us.
Thank you for your patience. If I could just clarify one more time: are you asking for the whole budget or individual rates?
B. McKinnon: Both.
Hon. P. Priddy: Why did I ask -- right? I suppose one of the things that the person doing estimates, especially the minister, should not do is provide additional questions for which she should find answers. However, I have an answer.
In terms of the current individual rates -- which is actually what I thought the original question was -- for regular care foster parents, they receive up to $732.44 per month. For restricted care foster parents, they receive up to $669 a month. Specialized care foster parents would receive somewhere around $989 a month for providing what is called level 1 care to an infant, up to $2,400 for providing level 3 care to a youth. So there is quite a range, depending on both age and the actual needs of the child. In terms of the total, the entire foster care budget for foster care rates is $60 million.
V. Anderson: Earlier you indicated the number of foster care homes. Could you indicate the number of foster care children and perhaps at the same time indicate what kind of turnover there is in a given year, if that is possible?
Hon. P. Priddy: If I just might clarify the question, hon. member. I'm sorry, but once we start digging through the papers, sometimes the question leaves me for a moment. Are you asking about the number of children in foster care?
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Okay. The number of children in foster care at any given point in time -- not over the course of the
[ Page 6271 ]
year, but if you sort of pick a day -- is about 3,100 or 3,200. If you look at it over the course of the year, you will see, I think, about 7,800. Something that was quite interesting -- to me, anyway -- when I came into the ministry was that 48 percent of those children in foster care are apprehended, and 52 percent of those children, which is the growing group, are there by voluntary family agreement. I certainly found it to be quite interesting when I learned that information.
V. Anderson: So by family voluntary agreement, they would be set for a variety of reasons according to family circumstances. Is there an indication of how many children in each category become almost permanent residents in foster care? There are children going in and out during the year; there are 5,000 or more that go out as well as come in, according to this. But how many children would there be, over a two-, three-, four- or five-year period, almost permanently placed in foster care?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I can give you a specific number. It is about 10 to 12 percent of children who stay in care, say three to four to five years. There are also, when you talk about children with particular complex disabilities, often those are sort of what are sometimes called permanent life placements. They are there for the whole length of their growing up time.
I want to mention this point that at this time. I think the information is correct, but we do not have the best data system in the world. Alan is gone and so won't correct me about the fact that earlier I said it wasn't for tracking youth recidivism. I was wrong on that one, but I know I'm right on this one.
We have a data system. We don't think it's a great data system. I give you the best numbers and the best answers that I have, but one of the significant goals of this ministry is building a much better way to collect data from around the province, from around a region. I mean, it is very difficult in this ministry at this time to collect accurate data from around the province, but I'm giving you the best numbers and data that I currently have out of the data system.
V. Anderson: I'm assuming from the figures that when children grow out of foster care there would be two normal routes. Either they would go back to their own families, or they would go for adoption. Do you have any indication of how many children who have been in foster care go for adoption over going back to their families, if I'm right in those two directions being the main two ways out of foster care?
Hon. P. Priddy: Given the numbers that I used earlier, which we call OSS -- old social services -- children currently registered
V. Anderson: That's helpful and interesting, because I think more people would be surprised. That doesn't seem like a large number, but when we hear the number of adoptions, it's larger than I would have anticipated. So that's interesting in that regard. Does there tend to be a predominance in the age of children who are in foster care, or is it fairly well the span of the whole age range from infants to age 16?
[9:15]
Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have it with us right now. We can get it for you, if you like, and provide it for you tomorrow.The other comment I want to make about the number of children who graduate from foster care -- that's a very odd verb to use, but I can't find another one -- who become over 19
V. Anderson: Just looking at that number, I realized a while ago that when children had been in foster care or in care of the government, when they became 19, they also then had some support services for the next few years to go into education and other experiences. Is that still available to them?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is still available. The only requirement around that is that they need to be getting on with life a little bit. Whether it's an apprenticeship, skills training, education or whatever, it's to help move on with that. But yes, it continues to be available.
V. Anderson: Going back to the foster parents themselves, there's a perception out there that there is a shortage of foster parents. Is that perception true? What kind of recruiting program is there, how many new foster parents would we get in a year, and how many would we lose in a year? What kind of turnover takes place?
Hon. P. Priddy: People are looking for the numbers, which I don't have, about the turnover that takes place. I can answer the other parts of the question.
Yes, there is a shortage of foster parents -- yes, absolutely, there is. When I talk about a shortage of foster parents, it doesn't mean that there is a child somewhere who can't be placed in a foster home. If a child has to leave their home either because we've apprehended them or because their family has an issue, ideally you don't want them to have to leave their school, and you don't want them to have to leave their Brownie pack or their softball team or whatever. In terms of ideal matches, which are in your neighbourhood with a continuation of all those other things in your life that are important to you, then we don't have enough of those kinds of matches -- no.
One of the things we have done -- and I can't remember the number, but somebody will tell me in a moment -- is that we have provided
We also have a project, or some initiatives, going on in downtown east side of Vancouver -- I shouldn't say only in the downtown east side, but in downtown Vancouver -- to recruit aboriginal foster parents. We are working with both the B.C. foster parent association and two aboriginal organizations to recruit aboriginal foster parents. There are a number
[ Page 6272 ]
of barriers that are faced by aboriginal people in terms of offering their homes as foster homes. Living is expensive in downtown Vancouver; having another room is expensive. There's just a variety of barriers that may not be faced in other places. So we have a very specialized or specific recruitment going on for aboriginal foster parents, as well.
You know, last time I did my estimates -- which wasn't last year, it was the year before -- I didn't need my glasses for every answer. That's a sign of something, isn't it?
The turnover data for foster parents was not kept by the previous ministry in any kind of central way. It is being collected; it will be by us. It has not been collected before; therefore it's another example of not having the data we need.
V. Anderson: I remember a year ago, when we were discussing the ministry with another minister -- and also the year before that -- they were in the process of rewriting the agreement between the B.C. foster parent association and the ministry. I understand you mentioned a particular agreement for training. Has that agreement been finalized? If so, could you tell us a little about it? Is it available, to have a copy of it?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it's done. Yes, it's agreed to. It's called Foster Care 2000. The B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations would like to have a signing ceremony with us. That we haven't done yet, although as you know, there is a huge international foster care conference going on this week in Vancouver -- which is very exciting, by the way. So yes, it is done, and we could give you a copy. But you can't give it to anybody, because we haven't released it yet. They don't have their copy signed yet. But we'll give you one as soon as we can.
I think they're very pleased. It's taken a fair bit of work to get to this point. I'm not going to read it to you. But there are a number of components which we've agreed on in the Foster Care 2000 document, including values and beliefs, the vision about what should be happening by the year 2000, and some statements about children in care, about caregivers and about foster parents being full members of each child's care team. That, by the way, is absolutely critical -- that foster parents provide temporary care that meets the needs of children and their families in a very professional team-oriented approach.
It talks a bit about the system. It talks about some goals, which I mentioned earlier, around training. There's a five-year training program that we have agreed to. Then we've agreed to some objectives around strengthening the foster care system over the next few years. It also talks about things like enhancing the availability of relief for foster parents, and so on.
So yes, it is complete. It is ready to be signed, I think, probably later this week. We are running them off practically as we speak. You can have the third copy off the press -- how's that?
V. Anderson: I'll celebrate with you, because that's been a long time coming and very important for the persons.
One of the concerns that have come to our constituency office quite frequently, actually, and also from other people around the province as we've talked about this -- and it came up in the Gove report, as well -- was that when foster parents had difficulty or were accused of having difficulty, or accusations were made against them in the past, there was no place for the foster parents to go for independent support. The association didn't have the ability or resources to do that at that time. I don't know whether this agreement gives them the resources to do that or not.
But also there was therefore a fear among other foster parents about getting into this, because of the uncertainties. In a number of cases that I'm aware of personally and that we had to deal with, the charges were never proved or actually never even contested; they were just made. The ministry dealt with them by simply firing the foster parents, some of whom had been at it for 20 or 30 years and were well recommended. So I wonder if the minister has come across those concerns. What is being done to give support and to address that? I think it's very critical.
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Chair, if I might -- it's probably not appropriate for Hansard -- I do have a staff person who is in the audience and who has been off sick for ten days. I might encourage her to go home if she's feeling like she ought to do that, because the rest of us all would if we could. We can't, but she can, you see.
Thank you for the question, member. There are actually three things that I would draw to your attention about this. One of them -- and it's in the Foster Care 2000 document -- is that with the foster parent association and the ministry, we will be implementing an educational brief, if you will -- a consultation and legal support service for foster parents who must attend such legal proceedings as inquests, Child and Family Review Board hearings and other similar judicial or quasi-judicial inquiries. So that's one piece.
Secondly, we are also working with the foster parent association on examining the feasibility of implementing a personal support and advocacy service for individual foster parents, because many foster parents really do feel that they work in isolation. Some days we might feel the same way, on long days here. But they really do often work in isolation. So looking at implementing a personal support and advocacy service for individual foster parents
The third piece in our legislation, which has had first reading and has not continued through the House -- but it will, just the minute we are finished here -- for want of a different description
V. Anderson: I'm delighted to hear those, because they've been long overdue, and there has been a real fear among many that if you made any accusations or if you asked a question or if you appealed, then the punishment would come down upon you. Whether it did or not, many people felt it came that way. And it wasn't fair, either to the foster parent or to the staff, because they were both caught in the bind. So I want to thank you. I'm delighted with the improvements that I hear about, and I will hear about them more as they work forward.
M. Coell: Just continuing with some questions regarding foster care. I can remember, during my life, having family friends who were foster parents; I always thought of them as very kind and generous people. There is a growing need for foster parents, and the problems that children are having seem to be getting greater.
[ Page 6273 ]
[9:30]
I have had a fair amount of comment from foster parents this year about the need for the ministry to give them more assistance, more training. I think we've seen a couple of cases where we needed more supervision, as well. If we could spend some time looking at the task forceHon. P. Priddy: The foster care task force is due to report to the ministry by the first week in September. They may need a bit of wiggle room, but I think they seem to be reasonably on track. They've been working straight through the summer; they've been meeting with people all over the province.
I have to comment on the task force for a moment in terms of its makeup. It's got a whole variety of folks on it that people might expect to see there, like the president of the Federation of Foster Parent Associations, etc. But there are four people on it that I think are really important, and I just want to make that acknowledgment. There are three youths on that task force who grew up in the care of the government, who I think are powerful voices, and we worked very hard to have a birth mom on that task force. That wasn't particularly an easy thing to do, nor was it easy for her in the beginning. She has been a tremendous asset to the task force, and I think it's a perspective that we would have been poorer for not having. I just wanted to say that.
It's to report in early September. The things that the task force will be looking at are what safeguards are in place in B.C. to ensure the safety of children and youth in foster care or group home care. What are the safeguards? Are they working? Are they working well enough? Do we need to strengthen them? Do we need to expand them? Do we need to change them? So they're looking at that whole issue of what the safeguards are that ensure the safety of children and youth in foster care. How well are those safeguards working? Do they need strengthening? Do we need additional ones? Something I think we haven't looked at very well before, hon. member, is: are children and youth adequately informed of their rights and recourse in the event that they think that their rights have not been respected? I think that that's not something that we've seen before, and I think that that's a particularly important part of the terms of reference.
One of the other ones I would mention is: are the parents of children and youth adequately informed of their rights, as well? I mean, these are their children. They may be in a foster home for a variety of reasons, but these are still their children. Have they been adequately informed of their rights? I think the rights of the natural parent and the rights of the child or youth are two things that we have not looked nearly enough at in the past. So those are the things that are currently being looked at.
M. Coell: One of the areas -- I think there have been a couple of cases in the last few years -- is where a child is violent and has done damage or assaulted a child of a foster parent. I wonder what type
Hon. P. Priddy: Other than the answer to the earlier question -- and I don't think it's a satisfactory answer for this one, hon. member -- aside from the sort of support services that you try and put in when you know that there may be a violent youth in a home, if the question is around whether we pay court costs or whether it is simply up to the foster parent to lay a charge, at this stage it is up to the foster parent to lay a charge.
You probably know that this is
M. Coell: I think it warrants some further discussion in that I don't think you're going to see this problem go away; I think you'll see it increase. In the cases that I'm thinking of, if a child is in the care of government, then we are responsible. If that child injures someone who is an employee of government, someone looking after that child, whether they're at a hospital or a facility like Eric Martin, which I think the minister is referring to, or in a foster home, to me there is some liability of the government to make sure that those people are safe, that they know there's a potential of a violent child. That violent child could be someone with AIDS, and a whole range of fist fights
To me, I think it warrants a further look. We looked at WCB for a push down the stairs or something like that. The ministry would stand back and say: "We're not really responsible; you'll have to initiate court action." That court action could be a lot more than that foster parent would ever get as payment for looking after a child.
I don't know whether the minister wants to comment on that or not. If not, I'll move on to another question.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is an issue I would rather leave, move on from, but I appreciate the member raising it. It clearly is an issue that needs discussion, but I don't have an answer or a policy for you at this stage. It is an issue. The whole issue of who is an employee, by the way, is a huge potential discussion, as well, so I appreciate you raising it. I don't think I have any useful information for you on the subject at this stage. You might want to move on.
V. Anderson: When you're talking about
What really has impressed me is the diagram that she has in that book which deals with isolation and loneliness, where on one hand she says that normally when we deal with those concerns "they are in isolation and loneliness because they have been disconnected from their family, from their culture and from their community." In the past, when we were moving to help them, we further disconnected them from family, from community and from culture. Instead of bringing them into those circles, we drew them out further.
I thought of that as the minister commented about connection with the families when children are in foster care. Up until now, it has been the pattern almost: when children went into foster care, they lost their heritage, and they lost their
[ Page 6274 ]
background -- unless they had gone voluntarily into care. There were bridges and structures set up which were almost impossible to cross, and that is a concern.
So I'm glad to know that it's working in that direction. I find that most people are quite impressed by Cherry's booklet "Finding Our Way," and so I commend -- through the minister -- Social Services, who gave her the opportunity to do that. I hope they'll continue to use it.
M. Coell: I wonder if we might spend a few moments discussing some of the problems associated with finding aboriginal foster parents, and the ministry's policy. Could the minister describe how that policy is working and what
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to pull the information, but there's another comment I want to make first, as well.
One of the things I want to say is that one of the other issues
There are a number of things we are doing to address the issue. One of them is an aboriginal social work training strategy that was developed in consultation with 14 provincial aboriginal organizations. That was in February 1997, so it was just a few months ago. There is active work going on now on that.
We've developed an aboriginal context in the professional social work child-protection training program so that social workers have an understanding of what the issues are for aboriginal people around fostering and how you might go about recruiting. Let me be a bit careful here. I think there may have been times when people have not always reached out to the aboriginal network because of our own lack of understanding of what an aboriginal cultural network looks like for a family. Because it doesn't look like ours doesn't make it wrong; it just makes it different. We want to make sure our social workers understand that aboriginal content.
As of the end of March '97, we have 12 delegated agreements with aboriginal bands for doing their own foster care, social welfare and child welfare. Ideally that's what you would wish to happen, and you want to provide them with enough support and tools to do that. Surely that is the direction they wish to be heading and the direction we wish to be heading with them. There are 12 agreements that we have signed.
We are working with urban aboriginal child welfare organizations, and I mentioned that earlier. As well, every region has to have an active part of their plan around working with aboriginal communities in their regions.
[9:45]
M. Coell: I think you've covered a broad range of topics as to what government is doing. With regard to the number of children in care, does the minister have numbers for aboriginal children in care in foster homes and the percentage who are in first nations or aboriginal homes?Hon. P. Priddy: There are 2,776 aboriginal children in care, and that includes those served by the Ministry for Children and Families and by first nations agencies. There are 649 children who actually reside on-reserve. I have a bit more of a breakdown here, and then I will, of course, take the guidance of the inestimable hon. Chair.
The number of children on-reserve served by first nations agencies is 262. The number of children in care on-reserve served by the Ministry for Children and Families is 387. That brings the reserve total to 649, as I mentioned earlier, but the entire total is 2,776. We know that it's significantly higher than we see aboriginal people represented in the population. If I am correct, aboriginal people are about 5 percent of the population and about 30 percent of the children in care.
Having answered the question, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:48 p.m.