[ Page 6275 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming my wife, Hazel, to the gallery this morning. She is here to see how we are comporting ourselves and to make sure we are doing our business promptly, so that we can have a little vacation together later this summer. Would everyone please welcome Hazel.

Standing Order 35 Motion

In light of the motion passed in the U.S. Senate yesterday, calling for further sanctions on British Columbia, and in light of the fact that we do not yet have a return to meaningful negotiations, I believe this is a matter that requires urgent debate in this Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the notice. What I will do, as is our practice in this chamber, is review the matter, and I will return to the chamber with a ruling. Thank you very much, member.

Orders of the Day

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(second reading)

The act is based on the recommendations of the interim planning council, which began its work in May 1995, appointed by the then Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. The interim planning council was appointed to advise government on steps to develop a new technical university in the Fraser Valley.

The council consisted of representatives from business and industry, labour, government and local educational institutions, including the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Kwantlen University College, the University College of the Fraser Valley, Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia.

The Technical University of British Columbia Act sets out the purposes of this university and its governance structure. It incorporates many provisions of the University Act and includes new provisions establishing a university council and program advisory committees. The act describes this university as an educational and research facility designed to provide British Columbians with the knowledge and skills they need to be leaders in our twenty-first century economy.

The purposes of the university, as set out in this legislation, include, first, to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels in the applied, technological and related professional fields that contribute to the economic development of British Columbia; second, to conduct applied research and development; third, to provide continuing education that responds to the needs of the applied, technological and related professional fields; fourth, to collaborate and cooperate with other post-secondary institutions and with business and labour respecting education and applied research and development; and finally, to create strong links with business and labour and to develop programs that are relevant to and at the forefront of industrial and professional initiatives.

These programs will be offered in accordance with certain general principles; that is, they will be offered in accordance with the principles of access, relevance, affordability and accountability.

I want to mention specifically the importance of this university's partnerships with industry, including business and labour, and with other educational institutions. Our goal is to make sure that its programs are relevant in order to avoid duplication and to ensure cost-sharing where appropriate.

Hon. Speaker, this act provides for a corporate governance structure that includes a board of governors with expertise in both academic and non-academic matters; a president, who is the chief executive officer of the university; and a university council. The interim planning council has recommended that this governance structure promote openness, accountability and innovation. The board of governors and the president will have the powers and duties of the traditional academic senate, as specified in the act.

This corporate governance model is being put in place to make sure that this university is flexible in programming and in staff requirements. The flexibility will allow the university to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs, to better prepare students for the workplace of the twenty-first century. The governance structure will also allow the university to more readily establish links with industry, to increase its ability to be self-financing, to be accountable for high-quality programs and to contribute to the economic development of the province.

The university council, made up of internal and external representatives, will advise the president on matters such as educational and research plans; the establishment, change or discontinuance of programs or program areas; and academic and other qualifications for admissions.

I just want to dwell for a minute on the qualifications for admission. The act specifically includes recognition of skills regardless of where they have been gained, whether in educational institutions or in the workplace. Mature students who don't meet the formal entrance requirements will have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have acquired the equivalent education through previous training and work and life experiences.

[10:15]

[ Page 6276 ]

other educational institutions. These external members will be well qualified to advise the head of each program area on issues such as the relevance of courses, course content, sources of funding for research and scholarships, and cooperative work placements for students in the community.

The act uses the term "teaching staff member" rather than "faculty" to define teaching and research staff employed by the university. This reflects the fact that there will be no tenure for teaching staff and no faculties, as such.

In introducing this act, I want to say a few words about the history of the development of this institution which has led us to today. In establishing this university, the government is acting on the recommendations of several committees appointed by the province to study post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley. The reports of those committees were consistent on two recommendations: first, the need for expanded educational opportunities in the Fraser Valley; and second, the need to be innovative, flexible and non-traditional in delivering programs cost-effectively.

Over the past several years the government has taken steps to implement the recommendations of these committees by expanding capacity and constructing new facilities at Kwantlen University College and the University College of the Fraser Valley and by providing those institutions with degree-granting status.

The new Technical University of British Columbia is part of the province's comprehensive response to very considerable demand for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley. The establishment of this university is also consistent with our government's commitment to invest in people and help them gain the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in this global economy -- an economy that requires flexibility and requires response to changes in science technology in the world marketplace.

Although it will be located in the Fraser Valley, the new university will be for all British Columbians -- improving post-secondary access in applied science and advanced technology, providing students with relevant work skills in preparation for employment in the labour markets of the future.

Development of this university has been a process of working closely with the community and responding to its needs, and this legislation allows us to take the next step to continue working with the community and with educators to help develop another post-secondary asset for our province.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 30, the Technical University of British Columbia Act.

This act enables a new technical university for British Columbia. The university is being designed to achieve three objectives: (1) to meet the rapidly growing demand for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley; (2) to prepare our workforce for the demands of the current and future high-tech workplace; and (3) to serve as a flagship for innovations in higher education.

The Fraser Valley is one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada, but unfortunately it has one of the lowest participation rates and is in fact about 75 percent of the national average. At the same time, it has the largest growth of 18-to-24-year-olds. So the question is: will this new university increase our lagging participation rates? There is no doubt that the participation rates in British Columbia need improving, relative to the national average. In the period between 1985 and 1991, rates in B.C. increased from 18 to 23 percent, while Canadian participation rates increased from 25 to 29 percent. The goal of this government was to reach the Canadian rate by 1995. Although this goal was not obtained, there has been some improvement. According to the ministry stats, we are now in a cluster behind Nova Scotia and Ontario, ranked about third or fourth.

The College-Institute Educators Association of B.C. argues that this new university will not improve access. I would like to quote from a media release of June 9:

"We do not need another high-cost facility that will divert funds from already established and successful institutions. Our analysis shows that the Technical University will do little to increase post-secondary participation rates of residents in the Fraser Valley region. This area needs more bridging and upgrading programs to enhance access -- not high-tech, high-skill and high-cost programs which will exclude many potential students."

The second criterion: Whalley says that they need the economic stimulus to achieve its hoped-for rebirth. This is a very weak argument. I'm sure that Cloverdale could make the same statement. What city wouldn't want, and need, the economic boost? My only hope is that common sense will prevail, leaving the site selection to more common sense than some political aspect.

Mr. Speaker, we must prepare our workforce to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy. Growth in the high-tech sector of this province, according to government sources, increased by 22 percent from 1994 to 1995. In a recent article in Newsweek, in the U.S. alone there are 190,000 high-tech jobs open. So as we move into the new century, there will be exponential growth in this sector. There will be a need to retrain already well-educated people for jobs available, as individuals are forced to make career changes. High-tech workers will find that one-half of the information received will be obsolete within three to seven years of completing their training. This will place huge demands on institutions to be able to facilitate these individuals in cost-effective and innovative ways. We must take into account the older student with family responsibilities and the inability to take time away from work.

The third objective of this university: to be innovative, to delivery learning in both a traditional and a virtual manner. To achieve the level of education in our workforce, we must be able to make higher learning available to everyone. Access to the provincial learning net, through this institution and other institutions, should make this possible.

One of the most innovative aspects of this university will be its governance, the structure of the board. The lack of a senate should give a maximum amount of flexibility. I think this fits very well with one of the main concerns expressed by students in the survey of 1993 baccalaureate graduates. They felt that their programs were overly structured, with insufficient time for concentration on their areas of interest. Hopefully, with this new structure, students can create meaningful and 

[ Page 6277 ]

relevant programs that can be adapted to today's job market. But this also creates a challenge to maintain this model without reversing to a traditional university. This will require the board members to carry forward this vision.

There have been a number of concerns expressed by this new university. The process of hiring the president and then starting the university was contrary to some people's thinking. Creating a new university is absolutely contrary to this government's current policy of asking for efficiencies within the current system. This government has asked the various institutes to increase their enrolments without an increase in funding. This government is talking about new, innovative ways of improving access, yet it has gone back to the traditional mode of improving access: bricks and mortar -- a method, I would suggest, that will ultimately be underfunded.

Concern has also been expressed by the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C. that the establishment of this new university will cause undue financial strain on the rest of the post-secondary system. There is further concern over this legislation expressed by their analysis of this bill, and I'll quote from their article:

"Furthermore, the new legislation allows for political control and interference in the operation of the new university unlike the other universities in the province. It denies any significant role to the academic staff, whose expertise is the key to the operations of a university and the guarantors of its quality. It permits outside business and labour interests to dictate the curriculum and the research work of faculty without any effective checks or balances to ensure that the public interest is served. It is a serious violation of national norms of academic freedom and of university governance. It has been designed by arrogant interests unwilling to consult with the academic staff, who are the key to the operations of any internationally competitive university.

"It is especially foolish to usher into existence a new university in a storm of controversy, rather than working with the academic staff to ensure both that the university is created only when there is sufficient funding for it and existing universities, and then that it has the same rights and responsibilities as the other universities of the province."

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 30, Technical University of British Columbia Act. I'm pleased to say that I support this new university. This is an act that will allow the government to establish a new technical university in the Fraser Valley. The growth in the Fraser Valley has been tremendous in the last few years, and teaching facilities have not kept up with this growth.

The Minister of Women's Equality stated in the fourth session of the thirty-fifth Parliament -- and I quote from Hansard:

"This government has taken a somewhat different path in making this decision to build a university in Cloverdale. The first difference is the scale of public consultation that took place. Four successive studies were done over many years, and all of them recommended that a university be built south of the Fraser. . . . So the decision to build this university came from the ground up and from a clearly demonstrated need."

The minister went on to say:

"The government recognizes that it's only fair to redirect capital funds to the south Fraser region, to redress the longstanding lack of facilities and to provide for the future of thousands of young people who will study, find jobs and raise their families in Surrey, Delta, Langley and up the valley."

When this government first announced this university, there was a tremendous amount of excitement in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. This university would not only help give our children an up-to-date education in the technical field but also bring revitalization and jobs to this area. There has been a need for a university in the Fraser Valley for many years. The people have lobbied for it and are now filled with a tremendous feeling of hope that this government will keep their promise and build this university in the Fraser Valley, accessible to the people living in the Fraser Valley.

[10:30]

There is a concern that the high cost of building this university will divert funds from already successful institutions. There is also a concern that existing institutions could deliver the programs and meet the huge demand for high-tech workers. I acknowledge those concerns when money is very tight and hard to come by. We also have to realize the costs to students who have to travel from afar -- the costs to them because of this distance. This cost could make the difference as to whether they continue their education or not.

Talks have to happen with industry so that the needs of industry for high-tech workers are responded to through our educational facilities. These educational facilities need to be placed where there is space for industry to develop and for students to receive on-the-job training, such as the site that Cloverdale provides.

The most profound change in this bill is the elimination of the senate. This seems to be a new form of governance, previously adopted by Royal Roads University. It appears to be more flexible in adapting to the changing needs of the workplace. I think it is important that we in government recognize that we are living in a fast-changing world, and that we need to keep pace with these changes in the workplace. Education has to keep pace with this changing world and the job market those changes are creating.

The most controversial implication that I find in this bill is the site location of the technical university. It appears to be becoming a political rather than a commonsense decision. It is my hope, as it is the hope of my constituents, that the minister will take the commonsense approach and keep the chosen site for the people of the Fraser Valley.

[ Page 6278 ]

J. Smallwood: I feel very privileged to be able to enter into this debate, in particular to follow the critic and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. I'd like to speak to a number of issues that have been raised by the critic and by my friend from Surrey-Cloverdale.

The issue of this university means an awful lot to us in Surrey, and it means a lot to us in the South Fraser. The debate with respect to a university and opportunities for our communities collectively has been, as the member indicates, ongoing for a long, long period of time. The member referenced the question with respect to the participation rate and opportunities for our young people, and I think that those arguments have been proven by the work that has been done. For many of us, as I said, this university has been a long time coming.

But there's more than simply the university and opportunity for people to either retrain or up-skill. It's also an opportunity for the South Fraser to become the community that it was meant to be. I first became involved in politics around issues of community planning. I think that most people that understand the suburbs understand that people come to the suburbs -- to places like Surrey -- because they have great hopes and expectations for their families. For a long time our communities were referenced by regions like the GVRD and by other communities outside the lower mainland as bedroom communities, because people raised their families there and worked elsewhere. For most of us, the development of our communities was not only about raising our children but about the future for our children -- the opportunities for education and for decent jobs, as well.

Our roots are deep for many of us, and I reference the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, as well, because I know that she has been a long-time resident in Cloverdale. Her family goes back a long while, and she understands that dynamic. I'm glad that the critic, the member for Okanagan East, is still in the House. He made specific references to the arguments that I have made, and I don't think he truly understands those arguments. This gives me an opportunity to flesh them out a little bit for him.

The questions here are about planning -- about what kind of community we will have as our children grow and what opportunities they will have. It's about the question as to whether or not our communities will continue to sprawl up the Fraser Valley, whether the transportation infrastructure that is there will serve our communities and whether we will continue to drive costs for that sprawling development.

The question with B.C. Transit is very simple. For those of us that were part of the debate around the investment in the SkyTrain infrastructure, we also understand that when the infrastructure was built, much of the bus transportation was centralized to SkyTrain; everything flowed into SkyTrain. Many of us at that time were very concerned about that. The centralization of the bus transit to SkyTrain made it very difficult to get around that region, because everything came into that juncture.

So be it. Those were decisions that were made a long time ago, and most of us have learned to rely on that transportation infrastructure. Indeed, much of the development has been driven by that. The five town centres for Surrey now begin to focus on SkyTrain, and they understand that if they need to get around the region, they have to rely on that flow of public transit. To get from any place in the South Fraser, one has to come to SkyTrain and then often take a second bus to their destination. So the argument with respect to transit is based on those infrastructure decisions many years ago.

Secondly, there is the question -- and I touched on it briefly -- of planning. For most of us, the business of planning our community has been a long-time debate. The questions are around affordability for housing, social infrastructure, schools and hospitals, and transportation infrastructure. Most of us are acutely aware that for such a community as South Fraser, the pressures on those infrastructures are immense. The province as well as the city of Surrey have to constantly have their eyes on the costs that are driven by development. When people talk glibly about government spending smarter, those are the kinds of decisions that governments have to take into consideration. Are taxpayers' dollars being spent in the most efficient way? Are we making overall decisions that ensure that we're not driving up costs down the road?

The question with respect to transportation is one that will be crucial to the development of the university. Can B.C. Transit afford an additional route or an additional structure that will feed an intense attraction like the university may, and hopefully will, become? Can the city of Surrey or the GVRD afford the continued impetus of growth that will be driven by a centre that is not complementary to the chosen site in Surrey, which is in the north end of Surrey, and the investments that have gone into the city centre with respect not only to transportation but to other infrastructure costs?

Then, of course, there's the issue of the environment. The pressure that the growth in the Fraser Valley has brought to bear on the environment, on the agricultural land reserve. . . . The overall pressures that a sprawling development brings to bear are all questions that I think responsible government must take into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, before I change my tack and talk about the university specifically, I want to name one other cost, and that's the cost of the fibre-optics juncture. At this point in time, the fibre-optics juncture for South Fraser is at Surrey Central in my riding. So for a university that depends on cutting-edge technologies, the questions around that infrastructure will also be crucial. I think the case is a logical case, not a political case. It's a case based on costs and smart spending. It's a case based on broader implications, more than simply the cost of the particular piece of land.

The point that I want to raise not only with respect to the location but with respect to this, I guess, bold initiative from our government. . . . I was a little distressed to hear the critic question the decision to invest in a high-tech university, because this is cutting-edge. It's cutting-edge for this province, and I think it's something we should all be very proud of.

I look at the constituents that I serve, and I all too often have the opportunity to meet with young people in our schools. Our school board has for some time supported science fairs, and in an opportunity that I had to speak to the president of the university, I suggested to him that perhaps one of the best ways we can meet this new age is to ensure that these young people have something to say about the development of the university and what it will do in the future.

When you talk to students and their teachers, their teachers will tell you that they are playing catch-up, that many times they find themselves in a situation where the young people in the classroom know far more than the teachers that are teaching them about the technologies. What an exciting way to ensure that the opportunities for our young people are on the cutting edge and reflect the new world that they will be entering -- the opportunity to involve them, as well as business, in designing what this university will do, and not only 

[ Page 6279 ]

meeting their needs for employment but ensuring that they have the opportunity to meet human needs and the realities that exist in South Fraser and in Surrey generally.

It's an exciting time for us in Surrey. We're all very pleased to enter into the discussion, and we do it in the most congenial way, hoping that government's decision reflects some of those pragmatics and the imperatives of spending smarter and ensuring that the broadest considerations are taken.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to just pick up on the comments of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley and say that this is indeed an exciting time for development of post-secondary education in the South Fraser area and for the province as a whole. At a time when other provinces in our country are reducing funding to post-secondary education, closing campuses, reducing the scope of programs and increasing tuition fees for students, here in British Columbia we are charting a very different course. We are keeping the costs for our post-secondary students low by freezing tuition and fees, and committing to keeping the cost of education affordable. Everybody has a right; it's not for the elite few as a privilege.

We are opening new programs and new campuses. Here, with the creation of the Technical University of B.C., we are truly embarking on a cutting-edge institution that will form new relationships with business and industry and the economy of the twenty-first century. I'm very pleased to be able to introduce this bill into this Legislature.

[10:45]

Let me just say a couple of things on issues that have been raised. First, on the whole issue of cost-efficiency, it is important to create new universities and provide new access. It is important to say that we are going to form new partnerships with industry, develop new training programs and move forward to make sure our citizens have the skills to prosper in the twenty-first century.

It is also important to do so in a cost-effective way. This university has committed to delivering student spaces at this university at a cost significantly below existing institutions -- at one-half the cost. It is also committed to developing clear links with business that will ensure relevance of programs and actually ensure some cost-sharing on training opportunities. It is going to be very actively exploring private-public partnerships for construction and development of its facilities, not unlike the BCIT downtown campus or the Simon Fraser University downtown campus that now exist. In all these ways, hon. Speaker, this institution will not only provide the educational services that are required but will do so in a way that is cost-effective.

The other issue that has received some debate already in this chamber -- and that I'm sure will receive more -- is the site of the university. I thank the member for Surrey-Whalley for her very thoughtful comments on the role that development of this university will have in community development in Surrey and in the South Fraser region. Let me just add a couple of points here.

I have asked the university to advise me -- as I said in estimates -- on siting for its facilities. Clearly, that decision and the recommendations that I expect to see before me will reflect the imperative that the Technical University of B.C. be linked strongly with the industry that it serves. Clearly it is imperative that the university consider transportation and access to other services within the Fraser Valley area and also within the broader province. This is a provincial institution, as well, and that needs to be recognized.

It is important that the siting also reflect its partnership -- which the member for Surrey-Cloverdale pointed out -- with Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Finally, it's important that its site reflect opportunities for exactly the sort of private-public partnership in construction of facilities that I spoke about earlier.

These are some of the considerations that the university will be considering as it designs its programs and chooses sites. We have a site in Cloverdale, as I have said in estimates, and that site is the one now selected. If I hear something different from the board of the university, we will be responding at that time.

Clearly this is an issue -- even within this chamber -- on which many views have been expressed. I even remember the member for Chilliwack advocating that the old Canadian Forces Base in Chilliwack be used as a site for this university. There is a diversity of opinions here. That decision must be driven by the program needs of this university, and that will be the primary consideration as we move forward with development of the Technical University of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to close debate on second reading. I will now move second reading of Bill 30.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Technical University of British Columbia 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.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 36.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 6280 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I call committee on Bill 41.

TRAFFIC SAFETY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

G. Plant: I am pleased to enter into the beginning of this discussion about the Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. There are a couple of questions I'm going to ask, which probably bespeak nothing more eloquent than the fact that I haven't spent the time necessary to run down all of the details. We have spent a bit of time this session redefining the penalties under provincial statutes to include something called the "fine" and something called the "victim's surcharge," and to create a compendious category, which I think is the phrase "the ticketed amount," which is the combination of the original fine plus the surcharge. I think that what is being done in section 1 is to identify the indebtedness that will then allow the corporation to exercise collection remedies that it will have as a result of bills now before the House.

I would be grateful for an explanation of the interrelationship between this business of the surcharge and the fine and the ticketed amount, and what is going to happen here. I suppose what I'm getting to is: does this mean that ICBC will become the collection agent for the victims-of-crime surcharge?

Hon. A. Petter: As is my practice, for the benefit of members of the House, let me first introduce some of the staff who are with me. Seated to my right is Ken Downing, legislative counsel for the Ministry of Attorney General; behind me is Nancy Carter, the director of strategic management and legislation in the cabinet policy and communications secretariat; and to my left is Graham Reid, senior vice-president of ICBC, so I can be assisted in the gamut of questions that may arise during the course of this committee stage.

I believe that the surcharge the member refers to applies to the full gamut of fines, but it certainly applies to the fines that we enumerated here under this act. However, the fines referred to in the opening section as "fine indebtedness" are, as the section suggests, the ones that are enumerated in paragraph (g). Those are specific fines: Motor Vehicle Act, Commercial Transport Act, Fuel Oil Tax Act and others that the member can read for himself in paragraph (g) of the new section 30.1.

[11:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

G. Plant: I take it that there will have to be some reporting and accounting mechanism between the corporation and perhaps the Ministry of Finance to account for the collection of the surcharge and the remittance of the surcharge by the corporation to government, where it will then fall into consolidated revenue, to be used in accordance with the purposes of the account. Is that a fair summary of how things will have to be developed?

Hon. A. Petter: As the member is probably aware, ICBC is already equipped to do this function, because they do in fact have the lead role in collecting fines. So they have all the appropriate accounting systems and, as the member suggests, those accounting systems are now going to track the surcharge revenue and -- I'm sure under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance -- ensure that those surcharge revenues go to their purpose, which is related to the Victims of Crime Act, as the member knows.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: This section provides for regulations respecting driver's licence classification. It allows different classes of drivers' licences to be created. I know we already have a system that does that, but I think the intention here is to now interpose new requirements that are intended to deal with the skills ability of drivers and ages and things like that, in addition to the time-honoured business of categories of motor vehicles. I wonder if the minister could outline what he foresees at this point as being the potential categories or classes of new classes of licences that will result from this process.

Hon. A. Petter: I will try to briefly summarize the intention here, because it has been discussed at some length in public and elsewhere. The intention here is to have three gradations of licence, which means the introduction of a new gradation, the probationary licence.

The first gradation will be the learner licence, but unlike the current learner licence, which is held or can be held for a very short period of time, that learner licence would have to be held for six months or, with approved driver training, for three months as a minimum in order to then go to the second stage.

The second stage would then be a probationary licence. The probationary licence will come with restrictions concerning levels of alcohol: essentially zero tolerance for alcohol, but allowing for the cough medicine problem. It will also have restrictions in the sense that a lower threshold of penalty points will be imposed before a person's licence is suspended and they are required to undertake further training. The duration of that licence will be 18 months.

Following that licence, there will be an extensive comprehensive test that will then lead to the full driver's licence. So we're talking about a learner probationary period that will extend from 21 months to two years.

G. Plant: Is it the intention that this 21-to-24-month window will apply to all new drivers, whatever their age? That is, if for some reason somebody has decided not to learn to drive until they're 24 or 34 or 44, or whatever, the same rules will apply to them as would apply to young drivers just starting out.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, this is not predicated on age; this is predicated upon this being one's first foray on the roads, if I can put it that way.

G. Plant: It is intended to be a three-stage process for everybody. You start out as a learner, you then get the probationary licence, and if you pass the comprehensive test and survive the probationary period without violating any of the conditions or restrictions, only then do you get to the final stage. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes. Just for completeness, I'd say that there are people who will come here from other 

[ Page 6281 ]

jurisdictions who hold valid licences who will not be required to go through these stages, but they're not really new drivers then; they're people whose qualification from another jurisdiction is recognized in this jurisdiction.

G. Plant: The minister has triggered two transitional issues. Well, he's triggered one, but there is another one. How will this apply to people who currently hold a full driver's licence in British Columbia but, for example, have not held it for a 21-to-24-month period? I assume it will apply such that everyone who now holds a full driver's licence will continue to do so. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.

G. Plant: Then moving to the situation of people who come here from out of province, is it the intention to administer this regime in a way that essentially recognizes all out-of-province drivers' licences at the level of full licences?

Hon. A. Petter: As is the case now, those who hold valid drivers' licences from out of province that are recognized as signifying the same kind of qualification to drive in British Columbia would continue to enjoy that transferability that they do now.

G. Plant: Moving specifically to subsection (2) of this new provision, it does speak about regulations referring to the length of time someone has held a valid driver's licence under the act in another jurisdiction. I'm not sure how it is intended that that will fit into this new scheme.

Hon. A. Petter: That provision is largely designed to guard against the possibility of people temporarily locating themselves outside of this jurisdiction in order to a secure a licence and come back. You don't want someone establishing temporary residence in a jurisdiction that doesn't have this kind of restriction in order to evade this restriction. That provision, then, allows us to take account of that and guard against that kind of sidestepping of the regulatory intent.

G. Plant: That suggests to me that part of the application process for people who are seeking transferability of their licences from other jurisdictions will involve some questions about where the licence is from and how long it's been held -- the kinds of questions that will allow the government to make that determination. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I anticipate that that's the case.

G. Plant: Subsection 23(2) has three specific tools for the measurement of driving experience, if you will. One is the length of time that someone has held a licence, the second is their driving record, and then the third is "other prescribed means," which suggests that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have the power to regulate other factors that go into this. I wonder if the Attorney -- the minister -- has. . . . By the way, it's not wishful thinking when I keep saying "Attorney"; it's just bad habit. If the minister has an idea of the other prescribed means that are already in mind. . . . I can tell you one thing, sort of off the top of my head, without purporting to suggest it would be a good or bad thing: there is sometimes not a correlation between penalty points and convictions for offences, on the one hand, and an actual claim record on the other. Someone's ICBC claim record could, I suppose, be viewed by the corporation as a criterion for determining licensing. I suppose that is particularly so now, since the corporation and the superintendent of motor vehicles are ever more the same entity. I'm not sure that it would, in fact, be a good thing to do that. I just want to have the minister's sense of what kinds of things he has in mind for this subsection.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me assure the member that it's not wishful thinking on my part, either.

With the paragraph "other prescribed means," we certainly would not be looking at the claim record as such a measure -- penalty points possibly, yes. The other one that this is intended to capture is the notion that in the learner period, for example, people who have a qualified driver training program will get some credit for that. There needs to be some assurance, of course, that that program is an accredited one that meets certain minimal standards.

G. Plant: So the regulations in this case could both give credit and prescribe the circumstances in which it would be given by reference to some minimum standards of competence on the part of driver training academies and the like. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

B. Barisoff: In that same section, could the minister explain, where it says "may designate any of the following for each class. . . ." I'm wondering why that's not prescribed -- why you have "may designate," and why there's not a prescribed set of. . . . I know you've got those three listed, but I'm wondering why it says may.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess the answer -- which is a little circular but I think is responsive -- is that this is an enabling provision. We do have a fairly clear idea of how we want to proceed. I've outlined that already for the member. But obviously we will want to monitor to make sure the program is working as intended. If it can be improved along the way, then it allows us to prescribe one or another of these various elements. It allows for some flexibility while making sure that we adhere to these basic categories in designing and perhaps improving a graduated licensing plan.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: The effect of the repeal of section 24(4), I take it, is that people holding learners' licences will now have to be insured.

Hon. A. Petter: No. The answer is a little different than the member suggests. People who drive under a learner's have to drive in a car that is insured. I take it that there was some element in this provision that prevented a charge from being brought, however, where a person drove without insurance. This is to correct that deficiency.

[11:15]

On section 4.

G. Plant: Part of this is to impose a requirement on an applicant for a driver's licence to provide the corporation with 

[ Page 6282 ]

specified information, and it's set out in what will become, I guess, subsection (3)(b.1): ". . .provide the corporation with information required to measure the applicant's driving experience, driving skills and qualifications." I suppose that if people take driving lessons and pass some driving course, then it would be easy enough to devise a scheme which allowed them simply to produce evidence that they had done so. And if the driving course was recognized by the corporation as being good enough for the purpose, then that would be sufficient. But I'm a little less sure about how the corporation will measure driving experience, driving skills and qualifications in other circumstances. I wonder if the minister could assist in explaining how he sees this working.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, this is really designed to pick up on the new graduated licensing system and to harmonize with it. The driving experience, I guess, refers to the same kind of experience that's contemplated there. The skills relate to the passage from learner to probationary through to full licence and the associated qualifications that go along with those.

G. Plant: I just want to pause to be sure that I understood the answer. So really, the questions will be: have you passed the probationary test? -- or those kinds of questions, as opposed to a long series of questions about the substance of driving skills.

Hon. A. Petter: As I indicated previously, the transition from a probationary to a full licence will involve a fairly comprehensive test. In the context of that test there will, no doubt, be testing that relates to skills and various qualifications.

G. Plant: Before passing this section, I want to make a comment that I really just raise as something which I hope the minister will take for further consideration -- that is, when we are attempting to determine if someone is a safe driver. . . . Obviously it's fairly straightforward to do that when we're talking about people who are learning to drive. It may be sometimes a little less straightforward for experienced drivers when we surround this question with considerations of penalty points and so on. It is, I think, probably the case that the easiest way for ICBC or government to measure driving safety is by reference to the objective existence of penalty points; it's a little more difficult to go beyond that.

But as I said a few minutes ago, there are probably some individuals -- and I really have no idea how many they would be -- who manage to accumulate a crash record that for some reason doesn't result in penalty points. These would be individuals who, by some criteria other than penalty points, arguably would be unsafe drivers. I think it would be a challenge to devise a system that would bring them into the picture, but it's an issue that I raise for the minister to think about as he watches this program unfold. We want to be sure that. . . . If I could put it this way, the driving principle here is safety, not the existence of penalty points. Penalty points are simply one measure of that. If the minister has a comment on that, I'd be grateful.

Hon. A. Petter: I agree that penalty points are simply a proxy, probably the most convenient one for driving records. We certainly can and will look at other proxies. On the other hand, trying to measure accident-proneness, if I can put it that way, is perhaps not so much a science as an art and one that may be beyond our ability to practise in the context of this regime. But I appreciate the member's suggestions.

B. Barisoff: In section 4 paragraph (a) there seems to be an expanded definition of what's taking place for "fitness." I'm just wondering how the expanded definition will actually change what the assessment might be, if there's any change.

Hon. A. Petter: The intention here is essentially to try to pick up and incorporate within this section the additional components that are introduced for graduated licensing and to track those through here. It's not to broaden beyond that. It's to incorporate into this regime some of the qualification elements and the skills elements that will come into the equation through the testing that is part and parcel of graduated licensing.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: This is a potentially quite important move -- to impose remedial driver training as a condition of licensing, and to include within this programs that relate to driver retraining and also the consumption of alcohol or drugs. The way that this section seems to work is that the triggering event is an opinion of the superintendent that someone's driving record is unsatisfactory or that their skills, fitness or ability to drive are in question. I'm wondering how the minister foresees the superintendent forming this opinion. What's the way that this is going to be administered?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I want to say that this section tracks to some considerable extent a private member's bill introduced by the member opposite -- for which I want to express my appreciation and to indicate that that bill was useful in giving me some comfort that this was an appropriate direction in which to proceed, and that it would receive support. So I want to thank the member for having taken that initiative. It also tracks similar initiatives elsewhere.

The kind of indicia that the superintendent is likely to look to are obviously penalty points and driver's licence convictions. Also, possibly there may be medical reports and the like which are made available to the superintendent and will assist the superintendent in determining the suitability of a person to drive, etc. Those are the kinds of indicators that the superintendent would likely draw upon.

G. Plant: The minister mentions medical reports. Does the superintendent have the power to require these sorts of things? I can imagine that that might be the case already, for example, in respect of people who have visual impairment or some other physical problem. I'm just not sure how that works.

Hon. A. Petter: What I would point out to the member. . . . I suppose medical reports could come forward as people try to demonstrate to the superintendent that they have overcome some addiction or the like in order to demonstrate their fitness to drive, having had their licence suspended. But there is currently a provision in the legislation which places an obligation on qualified and registered medical practitioners and the like to report to the superintendent 

[ Page 6283 ]

the name, address and medical condition of a patient who, in the opinion of the practitioner, has a condition that could impair their ability to drive. That's in section 230 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

G. Plant: It's helpful to understand where the minister thinks that that power comes from.

It seems to me that there are two regimes, or at least two potential regimes. I'll use the example of substance abuse problems. One is the regime where we have someone who has a drinking problem, and the superintendent says: "What you need is remedial training, but I will allow you to continue to drive provided that you complete some sort of remedial program before a specific date." I suppose you could almost call that a form of probationary driving permission.

The second regime would be where the superintendent would have the power to take away someone's right to drive altogether. That is not found here in section 25.1. I take it that the view of the minister is that that power already exists in the residual powers that the superintendent already has with respect to driver fitness elsewhere in the act. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

G. Plant: The last question I have on this is that it looks as though one particular aspect of my idea has been picked up here. It is the intention that the operation, I suppose, of this section be self-funded -- that is, that it be paid for by the people who have to take these courses and programs rather than paid for by the government. Is that a correct reading of the intention of this section?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. And again, I appreciate the member for having advanced that proposal within his own proposed legislation.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

G. Plant: Frankly, this is a section that I haven't had enough time to consider. What is intended by this provision?

Hon. A. Petter: It's essentially to provide more flexibility. The current provision provides for a short-term licence of 90 days to one year. Given that this provision relates to repayment schedules of indebtedness, people -- particularly people of limited means -- may require longer than that. This provides more flexibility for the provision of a licence that is of shorter duration but that does provide a reasonably extensive period of time to repay debt.

[11:30]

I should put a small personal prejudice on the table. I hear, from time to time, from people who are unhappy because they have been convicted of the second or third impaired-driving offence and have thereby lost the right to drive. They claim that a great injustice has been done to them. I personally have always found myself less than moved by that plea. But on the other hand, it is out there. I think the system does always need to be responsive to the fact that there are people who depend on their right to drive as a way of earning a living. I wonder if the minister could explain whether and to what extent there is some flexibility built into this part of the system to accommodate that situation.

Hon. A. Petter: This provision does not relate to the issue of the third conviction, where you lose your licence, but it does relate to the situation where people have, for one reason or another, accumulated indebtedness and then enter into an arrangement with ICBC. To the extent that it gives ICBC more flexibility to provide driving privileges as part of that arrangement over a longer period of time, then yes, it allows ICBC to be more responsive to people's need to retain a driving licence, while at the same time satisfying the public interest and their own responsibility to discharge the indebtedness they have incurred.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

G. Plant: Here we embark upon provisions that deal with traffic-light safety devices and traffic-control signal monitoring and all of this, which is a new way -- well, not that new, but it's about to become new in our legislation, I suppose -- of capturing speeders and other horribly offensive people. I wonder if the minister could just briefly describe how he intends to roll out this program and what is going to happen over the next little while.

Hon. A. Petter: The intention is to start with a few pilots, probably in the fall, and almost certainly at provincial intersections, as opposed to municipal ones. We will test the equipment that has been pioneered in other jurisdictions and is used there, make sure we have it working appropriately, and then extend this intersection-monitoring to critical intersections -- critical by virtue of their propensity for there to be accidents as a result of people not observing the signals -- throughout the province. This will be done in consultation and following consultation with municipalities, which are not being consulted on a municipal basis but on a blanket basis to try to determine the terms that should apply to attaching provincial cameras to municipal intersections. I might say that I've already received letters from municipal leaders who are very interested and are in fact encouraging us to work with them because of concerns they have concerning particular intersections in their communities.

Clearly the intention here is not to proceed on a municipality-by-municipality basis, but to make sure that we have a common understanding with all municipalities that will enable us to move forward across the province, targeting those intersections that are of greatest concern from a traffic safety point of view.

G. Plant: Rolling out this new program is obviously going to involve some expense on the part of some branch of government. I guess the questions are: who is paying, and has it been budgeted for? What is the expectation in terms of the cost for the fiscal year in which the payer is now in -- if it's the government this fiscal year or ICBC or whatever the case may be?

[ Page 6284 ]

Hon. A. Petter: We did discuss this a little bit, I think, during the context of my estimates debate. We are talking about a few pilots this year that are probably in the range of a couple of hundred thousand dollars -- not huge expenditures. The payer, to use the member's expression, would be the corporation, and the savings that are expected to accrue are ones that, based on track records elsewhere, would hopefully far outweigh the investment. Generally, ICBC has done very well off its traffic safety initiatives: it is estimated to be about a 3-for-1 payback. We certainly want to proceed expeditiously but also make sure that we get it right. So we'll be working on a couple of pilots, making sure that the equipment works the way it is supposed to, before we start introducing this in a more extensive way.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that. I suppose that, technically, the next question may arise later, but let's deal with it now and then move through the rest of it. These devices are going to be capable of catching speeders, and this will result in a ticket process. How will this ticket process resemble or differ from the photo radar ticket process?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me correct in a minor way what the member said. It's not designed to pick up speeders; it's designed to pick up people who enter an intersection on a red light. Having taken some time and some pains to get the administration around the ticket-processing for photo radar up and running, the intention -- I'm happy to say -- is to use the same basic administrative processing mechanism for handling these tickets as is now in place and working very successfully on photo radar.

G. Plant: I won't take advantage of the minister's last sentence to embark upon a debate about photo radar now.

Does that mean, to jump to the. . . ? I was going to say the end of the process, but that's not quite right. Does that mean that someone who commits one of these offences, who is, essentially, caught by this device, will get something in the mail -- which is a photograph of his or her vehicle entering the intersection? What is it that the person will receive that indicates they have committed this offence?

Hon. A. Petter: We want a little latitude so that the corporation can experiment with some of the technologies that are being used elsewhere. The intention now is based, as I understand it, on the California-type technology to provide, yes, a photograph that would both indicate the time and provide evidence of the vehicle entering into the intersection on a red light.

G. Plant: The minister has already spoken about pilot projects. I take it that the intention here would be to use pilot projects in a way that doesn't result in tickets; that is, to actually just test the equipment for a while, see if it works and see if in fact all the systems work in a way that is fair to everybody. Only when you've got something that is workable would you then actually start to issue tickets.

I suppose if that is so, then what the minister is saying is that he presently anticipates that the end result, or the first thing that the offender would find out, is something in the mail that has a photograph with the information he said. It is possible that the testing process may result in a decision to, I suppose, use some other method. Is that reasonable? Or are we pretty well down the road on what's going to happen now?

Hon. A. Petter: We're pretty certain, and the technology is tested. That's my expectation. The idea of the pilot, as the member suggests, is to test the technology. That is the intention.

To cover off the member's other point, yes, I anticipate that in the initial stages -- partly to get the public familiar with the devices as well as to allow the corporation, I suppose, to test their use -- there will be a period, a sort of dry-run period, in which people do not actually get points but get to benefit from the information that's provided, if I can put it that way. Then presumably it will lead to a period -- again, with associated publicity and notice to the public -- that would result in ticketing, which would result in the person having to pay fines.

G. Plant: One last area of questioning, then, on this -- at least for me. The minister spoke about a consultation process. Is the government using the joint council for this, with municipalities or UBCM? Or how is the government -- or ICBC, for that matter -- consulting?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm helped by the presence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the House. It was my recollection that the joint council process was going to be the forum at which the matter would at least be raised initially, and I believe that that is indeed the case. ICBC may then, of course, have occasion to talk directly to municipalities and engineering departments and the like about specific issues, but under the auspices of the joint council process.

B. Barisoff: Would there be a choice by municipalities of whether they could use it or not?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the intention is not that there would be a choice, municipality by municipality. The intention is that we work out with municipalities an acceptable protocol that would then result in these cameras being introduced across the province on the basis of some objective criteria or a designation of intersections according to their dangerousness -- not according to the municipality in which they are located.

Sections 11 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

G. Plant: We're here talking about the issue of impoundment. I think I understand how that works. The question that has occurred to me and to others is: what about the situation where someone has his or her vehicle stolen and it then, by some process, becomes impounded and the owner wants it back? This may not arise specifically here, but I know it arises somewhere. There is certainly a potential for unfairness if it is the owner of the vehicle who has to pay the impound release fee, even though there was nothing that the owner did to give rise to the impoundment. I wonder if the minister can give me some comfort that that is not in fact what's going to take place.

Hon. A. Petter: This provision is designed to expedite the police in making sure that stolen cars that become impounded can be returned immediately and expeditiously to their owners. Any impoundment fees are then picked up -- through other legislation, I think -- by the superintendent. So the individual is not liable for those impoundment fees in the circumstance where it is as a result of theft that the car has become impounded.

[ Page 6285 ]

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

G. Plant: It's in Bill 40, I think, that there are provisions around, I guess, the additional powers of the superintendent in respect of licence cancellations, hearing appeals and things like that. I'm not sure how this fits into the provisions in Bill 40, and I'm wondering if the minister could explain.

[11:45]

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

G. Plant: This is a fairly small question. Is this a new offence insofar as it relates to photo radar? That is, is this the first time we've seen a specific offence for obstructing the operation of photo radar equipment?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes. Presumably there are other provisions of other acts that could be used -- mischief and the like -- but this is the first in terms of a specific offence, yes.

G. Plant: I'm curious to know if the minister has tracked in any way the incidence of events like this, and if he could report to us on whether this is in fact a real and pressing problem or not.

Hon. A. Petter: It's not a major problem for photo radar, I understand, despite some press reports that I recall to the contrary. The problem is more in anticipation of the intersection cameras, which will be fixed at specific intersections and will not have an attendant. Obviously, the opportunity for someone to try to disable those cameras is there -- and this provision guards against that.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

G. Plant: I wonder if I could just ask the question this way: what is new about this provision? Again, this is one that I haven't followed through carefully enough to understand it, so I guess I need to impose on the minister for his assistance in that regard.

Hon. A. Petter: It really ties in with the next section and provides for graduated fines for excessive speeding. So this provision is, in a sense, a related change to accommodate the graduation of fines in respect of speeding offences.

G. Plant: Is it the intention then that graduated fines would only kick in at some speed in excess of 40 kilometres per hour over the applicable speed limit? That speed limit number appears in section 28, section 148(1), and that's what I'm trying to figure out.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is no. The 40-kilometre-per-hour reference in this provision is a carryover from the previous provision, so that is the status quo. The intention is that there would be graduated fines that might go up at, say, 20-kilometre increments beyond the speed limit, as opposed to 40. This 40 is simply a carryover from what's already there.

G. Plant: I'm sure this really arises more properly under section 29, but I promise not to ask the question twice. Does the minister have a sense of what kinds of fines we are talking about? Are they going to be, roughly speaking, roughly proportionate to the current regime? Or are we talking about an intention to create whackingly different fines? Again, I guess it's: what are we to expect here?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, obviously the fines are intended to increase as the severity of the offence increases, but arithmetically rather than exponentially, if I can draw back on my inadequate mathematics background. In other words, it's increments of $50 to $100 -- something like that -- for excessive speeding or for speeding in critical areas, like school and playground areas.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

G. Plant: The Allen report, commissioned by the government, recommended a commission with more extensive powers than this one is intended to have. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale for his decision to design a commission in this form rather than in the form as recommended by the Allen report.

Hon. A. Petter: Actually, the member captured it pretty nicely, if I recall, during his second-reading comments. It seemed to me that there was value in having some independent commission that could both monitor the implementation of this program and provide advice as to how that implementation is going and how it could be improved. I was not anxious to create, frankly, another huge bureaucracy that would replicate the capacity within either ICBC or the superintendent's office.

There has been some contention concerning the success of safety programs. There has been contention about the degree to which savings can be achieved -- both dollar savings and savings in human lives -- from safety initiatives. The idea to have some independent body with some expertise to provide oversight and be able to be a forum which the public and the corporation could look to for ongoing guidance was helpful. A small, stripped-down commission of three or possibly five people -- not a large, ongoing policy-making kind of body -- seemed to me to be a pretty good compromise. It reflects the concerns the member himself expressed the other day about not replicating the capacity that already exists but, on the other hand, trying to take the best of the Allen recommendation that there was some need for independence and oversight outside of the very agencies that have responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of this legislation and policies.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for remembering my second-reading remarks.

[ Page 6286 ]

The next issue, then, is: who is going to be appointed to this commission? I think that the minister will at least acknowledge that there has been some public controversy during the course of the no-fault debate about the extent to which the government has been hearing voices from outside government on traffic safety issues. This bill marks a significant step forward in terms of reflecting a more successful consultation process. The minister has an opportunity here to ensure that the commission that he will appoint will be comprised of people who are independent of government. It's an exhortation as much as anything to encourage the minister to appoint commissioners who are independent, feisty-minded folks. I wonder if the minister already has a sense of how he's going to create this commission.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have a sense of who the commissioners might be. I do have a sense that we need people who have some expertise and certainly some independence of mind in evaluating what is happening in terms of this initiative and how it can be improved. I do want to say to the member, though, that this is not intended to be a forum for ongoing consultation, but I do intend that there be a forum for ongoing consultation through some advisory committee, to ICBC or the government or whatever.

One of the huge benefits to come out of the process we've been through is that so many groups have become engaged. I won't list them all; I did that in my second-reading speech. For others who felt somewhat excluded or who perhaps have seen the issue in terms of particular issues -- which we needn't go back into -- but would like to get involved particularly in the safety side, I would like to open the door and allow them to become more involved, as well.

The commission can perform a useful role in providing information and monitoring that can assist that process and provide an independent source of information to that process. This is not to be a sort of consultation forum. There will be forums in which we can have consultation and continue, hopefully, to work together with groups like the BCAA, the legal community and others in advancing the objectives of this bill and doing so in a way that also keeps costs down for the motoring public.

G. Plant: I have one or two more small questions, to get closure on this section. I take it that the commission is going to be funded in some way. Can the minister explain who will be funding the commission and how? Is it intended that the commissioners themselves be paid or remunerated in some way? Do we know the answers to those questions yet?

Hon. A. Petter: As I said earlier, it's my intention that this not be a huge burden. Frankly, we haven't finalized either how the funding would take place or whether there would be remuneration. Certainly there would have to be some per diem recognition of travel expenses and the like, but it would be my preference to keep this as modest, in terms of cost, as possible. That has yet to be worked out -- the funding of the commission. With my other hat on, as Finance minister, obviously I want to make sure that it can be accommodated within existing budgets.

Section 32 approved.

The Chair: On section 33, there is an amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: There is, hon. Chair, but with my eye on the clock, I will ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

The Speaker: Minister, before I entertain the motion to adjourn the House, I want to respond to the motion made earlier this morning under standing order 35.

Today, members will recall, the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast sought to move, pursuant to standing order 35, that the House adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance -- namely, blockades and other matters connected with the lack of resolution of the salmon treaty between Canada and the United States of America.

Our practice in this House is that standing order 35 motions must meet "rigorous restrictions" and that a recent occurrence in an ongoing matter does not create a matter of urgency. I note that over the past few weeks, numerous articles have appeared in the press dealing with the Pacific salmon fishery, the treaty between Canada and the United States and the blockade of an Alaskan state ferry by British Columbia fishing boats.

[12:00]

For the foregoing reason, then, the hon. member's application cannot succeed.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES
(continued)

[ Page 6287 ]

M. Coell: We were talking at the end of last night with regard to foster care. I just want to check a number with the minister. I had written down that there were approximately 3,163 in foster care, and the minister gave me a number of 2,776 aboriginal children in foster care. I just wonder: do you add those two together for the total children in foster care, or subtract?

Hon. P. Priddy: We were just trying to make sure that we would be the least confusing with the numbers as possible. I think the numbers that I offered last night were that regular foster care is the 3,163, if I recall correctly. On top of that is specialized foster care, which I think is 1,361, and then another. . . . We have 2,700 aboriginal children in foster care who would rotate through, depending on what is most appropriate, the foster homes for them. So if you look at that on an annual basis, you get about 8,400 to 8,500.

M. Coell: Does the minister have the number of foster care families in the system who are aboriginal, compared to non-aboriginal?

[10:15]

M. Coell: Yesterday the minister identified the need for more aboriginal families to become foster parents, and the ministry has policies to encourage that and to encourage reunification of native children with their families.

I wonder if the minister could describe for me any programs that the ministry is undertaking this year that would help to educate. . . . The minister did say that one of the main problems was parenting skills. Is the ministry going to be investing some time and some money in developing programs, and what might they look like this year?

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps just to add a little bit to what we had an opportunity to discuss last night, member, is that as part of the recruitment and the very active projects going on, particularly in Vancouver, with both the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and two of the aboriginal organizations. . . . We know that when we do that recruitment, we will also have to do training that goes along with that. So yes, there will be additional training as those additional foster families are recruited.

In addition to that -- I think this is information I provided last night, so I don't wish to necessarily have you listen to all of it again -- the work we're doing with the movement towards. . . . For instance, with the 12 bands who already have delegation, we also provide training in that respect. It's often a staged turnover of the delegation, so we provide whatever support and training is necessary. Many aboriginal bands are now doing their own foster care, but they needed support and training in order to be able to do that, as well as the work that we're doing with social workers around cross-training.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister would be able to give me a dollar figure for the amount of money spent on those programs for aboriginal people.

Hon. P. Priddy: If you like, I'll break it out for you, but let me give you the entire total first. It is about $6.5 million -- or $6,450,000, to be precise. That would include, for instance, aboriginal services which are cost-associated with the Ministry for Children and Families -- some of our new aboriginal child welfare initiatives that we've spoken of already. It includes non-residential, and that's one of the higher costs for aboriginal children and their families. These would include services such as recruitment of resources, training initiatives for caregivers, parents and both Ministry for Children and Families and non-ministry staff, and promoting independence of aboriginal people in planning for their own children's care and independence. So it's increasing resources in that respect.

There is a little over $500,000 for urban aboriginal projects, because that is a different and unique kind of complex, when you talk about the needs of urban aboriginal people. There are dollars for home support workers, child and youth care workers, school-based support services, and youth services to assist aboriginal youth with issues of identity, reconnection, drug and alcohol problems and support to independence. I think that's it.

M. Coell: I very much agree with the comments the minister made last night about the residential schools' effect on a whole generation of people and their ability to develop parenting skills and family life skills. I very much agree with her comments of last night.

One of the things I found, from sitting on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, was that when we went through the province listening to people from urban and rural areas, the urban areas had some major problems with families not being able to keep together for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in hearing more regarding the half a million dollars for the urban aboriginal projects. I believe I may have actually been in some of those projects that were funded by the ministry. I just wonder if the minister can expand on those urban projects. I believe they're in the Vancouver area, for the most part.

Hon. P. Priddy: Primarily, they are. Let me give you three examples, and if you want more, we will certainly provide them for you. I introduced last night -- in her absence, but we all bowed respectfully -- Dyan Dunsmoor-Farley, who is responsible for issues of intergovernmental affairs and aboriginal affairs.

Out of the dollars that are used around supporting urban native families and youth, there's about $80,000 that is used simply -- I shouldn't say simply, because it certainly isn't simple -- to support family reunification. I think that family reunification, under all circumstances, is difficult. If we talked about adoption, we probably would say the same kinds of things, but it's even more complex in these circumstances. So one of the amounts goes to helping that family reunification.

I think a group that you would have some familiarity with is VACFASS, which is the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society. It provides some early intervention support for both youth and their families so that we may not have to provide a more intense level of support later on. So that's for families and youth who are struggling and need some intervention help now. We hope to get it to people now, as opposed to having a larger and more serious family issue to deal with later on.

[ Page 6288 ]

It also includes -- I guess I'm very conscious of this, given where I come from in my constituency, hon. member -- funding for Métis Family Services. Métis Family Services is a very active organization. I know it because it happens to be based not in my constituency but at least in the city where I live. I think sometimes people forget, when we talk about urban native people or we talk about native people, that there are all kinds of struggles for Métis, as well. So a significant part of that funding goes to Métis Family Services.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have a policy on hiring aboriginal people to work in these projects? Does the ministry have a policy on hiring aboriginal people to work in other areas of the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: Again, it is one of those where I leap up, thinking I know the answer but then think I should probably check. I was around when the employment equity policy was first debated, shall we say, in the Legislature, so I guess I feel I know this one a bit.

Yes, we do have, and it happens in a variety of ways. We do exclusive postings. I mean, that doesn't happen all the time in all parts of all ministries, but certainly if we are looking for staff support in our services for people with aboriginal. . . . If we have openings and they're aboriginal services, we would do a designated posting, saying that what we're looking for is aboriginal people with aboriginal ties and experience. That's part of the employment equity policy.

We have also sent out now to all of our contractors -- although, quite frankly, with aboriginal organizations you would not have to encourage them to do so. . . . But we've sent our diversity policy to all of our organizations saying that we have an expectation that if they are serving large numbers of any kind -- whether it's aboriginal people or South Asian or Asian or whatever -- they take that into consideration in doing their policy. That's for contractors as well.

M. Coell: I'm supportive of that. I think that in many instances, when we're trying to help families stay together and children stay out of foster care, we need a multifaceted approach, and I think that one is an important part.

The area of foster care that I'd like to spend some time on is the area where disagreements between foster parents and the ministry arise. They're probably the ones I hear about, and I'm sure the minister does too. I'm thinking of the Donaldson-versus-the-ministry case that went to the Supreme Court. That was a case where a child who was placed in a foster home sexually abused the three-year-old daughter of the foster parent. That case, I believe, went on for a number of years, and I would just like to canvass the ministry policies around situations like that. Have they changed how we deal with foster parents?

Maybe I could explain a little more why I'd like to canvass that. I think that's one of the problems that potential foster parents see with fostering -- what sort of support they can expect from the ministry if trouble occurs. I would hope the ministry is reviewing this case, with the potential to change some of the policies. My question would be: what was the cost to the ministry of fighting that case through to the Supreme Court, from the time there was a problem identified and charges were laid? What was the total cost of that case to the ministry?

[10:30]

M. Coell: That's it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to make sure that we're answering what is useful for you. My understanding is that the Donaldson case is still under appeal to the Supreme Court. We don't have those numbers with us, but my understanding is that it is still under appeal. So I'm not even sure that we would be able to provide you with a definitive number in that respect. However, I think part of the question you are asking, if I'm not misinterpreting it, is the whole issue of resolving difficulties between the Ministry for Children and Families and foster parents, which for foster parents has been an ongoing issue -- and I think a legitimate one.

There are actually two or three things that we are doing in this respect. We now have a process, which is actually called "Resolving Difficulties Between Ministry Staff and Foster Parents," which describes how disagreements are resolved between foster families and the ministry. We could provide you with more detail on that if you like; we are happy to do so.

Also, caregiver entitlements -- commonly referred to as the rights of foster parents, if you will -- address issues of concern to foster parents such as the right to receive full and pertinent information regarding the care of a child placed with them, which I think is the issue here as well, and the right to refuse to accept a child into their home and not have any repercussions, as we spoke of last night.

I just have one more piece here, I think. Within the regions, the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations and the ministry, as I say, have negotiated this new process. It does follow a number of steps where foster families meet first -- because that's why we have this organization -- with a representative from the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations. Then they meet with a designated regional manager, a regional operating officer, and they may actually go as far as involving the ombudsperson in the process.

V. Anderson: I'm glad to know that this kind of process is in place. Might I ask the minister: is this process open to people who have previously been foster parents, who are in conflict with the ministry and had a very unsatisfactory result? Is it possible to review some of those cases that have taken place over the last few years through this process?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it is.

V. Anderson: That will be good news, and therefore I would like to get the information that you were mentioning, if I could.

I will mention one case that has been very public and which we had a great deal to do with through our office. It was for the Kampmans. Some of your staff will probably remember that, although that was previous staff. The situation was that they had been foster parents for many years. She was with Dr. Sydney Segal, one who worked with foster parents; she was recommended highly by him. An accusation was made against them which was never proven, charged or dealt with, but the ministry dealt with it by cancelling the contract. In cancelling the contract, they took from the home children 

[ Page 6289 ]

who had been there ever since birth, and who were now four and five years of age. So it was the only home and they were the only parents that they had ever known. The process of dealing with that was just horrendous. The children were cut off from the only stable life they had known for many years. That one is still underway.

Another aspect of that, which I might ask. . . . I'm not asking for your comment on that particular case until you have more information to review it, but another aspect of that came up, and it has come up in other cases, as well. What is the policy for persons who have done long-term fostering with children and have established a long-term relationship with them being able to apply under a separate process, as I would understand it, to be considered for adoption of those children?

Hon. P. Priddy: There may be more to the question, so let me give you the first part of the answer, and then you can tell us if you need more.

As it refers to the family that you spoke of first -- because there is still action taking place on this -- the director of child protection is reviewing the Kampmans' request for external mediation to resolve their complaints in consultation with legal staff at the Ministry of Attorney General. A decision will be made after the Ministry of Attorney General's recommendations are reviewed. So it has not been dropped; people are still working towards mediation in that respect.

In terms of a child who has had a long-term foster placement with a family, my answer is simple, so I may not be understanding the question. If a child has had a long-term foster placement with a family and for whatever reason then becomes eligible for adoption, then that family would be -- and I know circumstances where it has happened -- eligible to apply for adoption of that child. I would think that at least part of what would be considered is the length of time of bonding that that child has had with that family.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your comments on both of those issues. I might say, having had a long relationship with the Kampman issue, that I certainly would commend that it have a very thorough review. I am quite convinced in my own experience that the process -- the outcome may be the same or not; I'm not sure -- was not adequately followed through at that particular time. So I would encourage that that process be completely reviewed. I am glad to hear it is being reviewed at this point, because for a long time it wasn't.

Regarding the second one, on the placement of foster children, that issue came up in the case of the Kampmans. Because of the issue over foster care, the issue of adoption was not even entered into. As far as I know, it was not even given the opportunity of being considered. One of the implications was that if you are fostering, then you would not be open for consideration -- realizing, of course, that being considered for adoption is in many ways a different process than fostering. Therefore you would need completely different criteria. So I'm glad to know that that option is there with that understanding. If you want to reply to that. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: Just briefly, if I might. One of the issues we spoke of last night. . . . By the way, the mediation is moving along. It is also -- should we get through estimates and get into the House -- the new piece of legislation. It includes -- not that that was an incentive -- what people would describe as whistle-blower protection, so that foster parents who feel that they have made a statement, that it has not been agreed with and that therefore they have in some way not had a contract renewed or not had a child placed, or whatever, have a legal option, as well, to do that.

Yes, you're quite right, member. The criteria for adoption are quite different from the criteria for fostering. But in a number of cases that I am personally familiar with, foster parents have then moved on to be adoptive parents. Particularly with children with special needs, there is assistance to do that.

V. Anderson: There was another aspect of it that went through my head, but at the moment it has gone again. Maybe if I think of it, I'll come back to it.

I want to go back to a previous discussion for a moment, if I could, that had to deal with working with the aboriginal community. A discussion came up in relation to foster care, but it broadened itself somewhat. Does the ministry have an ongoing advisory committee -- I know you have a staff person -- that's working with you in developing an aboriginal policy and understanding within the ministry itself, relating to aboriginal concerns?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the deputy is checking for a piece of paper that he knows is in the pile somewhere. I do not as yet have an official advisory committee on aboriginal issues for the ministry. Actually, we're trying within the ministry in general -- not just in this area -- to work out whether it's reference groups, advisory committees or whatever.

We brought together aboriginal groups from all over British Columbia in January and spent a full day raising issues with them. We've written to Chief Saul Terry of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, offering to work with him -- offering to have the issues brought forward and to try to be able to do that in some kind of concert, if you will, to advance issues of mutual concern. Our intention would be to continue to move along, working with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs as well as with the Summit. We have written to Chief Edward John and Chief Joe Mathias and others from the First Nations Summit for the same reason -- to say that we know there are ongoing aboriginal issues about social issues, child welfare delegation and so on. We have agreed that we will have that ongoing relationship. We don't yet have a formal advisory committee within the ministry.

V. Anderson: Partly what I'm aware of out of my own background and experience is that we acknowledge that there are cultural differences between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people -- even as there are with many other multicultural people, but that's another issue.

One of the realities that I know we face in schools as well as in communities is that the aboriginal process of philosophical thought-form and spirituality is different from the non-aboriginal. One of the realities that aboriginal people have to cope with, of necessity, is to work in two cultures and to understand the differences between them and how you translate back and forth between the two cultures. It seems to me important that those of us who work with them need to understand that if we're going to work with them, we have to be able to do the same thing: think and work in the two cultures. If we were using different languages and working in their language, we would do it automatically, but when we're not. . . . What I'm asking about is: are there some philosophical studies and papers, directions, that are being made available to the non-aboriginal as well as the aboriginal staff to 

[ Page 6290 ]

share our understanding of how these two cultural thought systems work? I think that without that, we will never get the kind of mutual cooperation and appreciation we should have.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, as a matter of fact there are. I don't want to delay the discussion, but I do want to support the comments the member made, because even around the definition of family and the concept of adoption there are significant differences. I personally think there is quite a lot to learn from aboriginal people on how they consider family, which is in a huge extended way which many of us don't have the opportunity to benefit from. So I just want to support that comment.

I shouldn't speak for all parts of the province, but I do know that in my own community we are circulating papers to people around the concept of family and parenting and extended family in aboriginal communities, and have extended that to all of the multiservice agencies that are working in the city I come from, to help people better understand that. That was simply an introductory comment of mine.

We may have commented briefly on this last night, but the aboriginal social worker training strategy was developed in consultation with 14 representatives of the provincial aboriginal organizations and was presented and agreed to in, I think, February 1997. The purpose of doing that was to increase the effectiveness of ministry social workers delivering service to aboriginal communities -- I'm not sure if it's "to" or "with," and I guess in many ways I'd like to think it's "with," although people use the word "to" -- and to pay greater attention to the need to ensure that social workers have orientation. We are doing that. It's mandatory not only to aboriginal issues but also to the local history and cultural traditions of the aboriginal communities and their regions.

It's not like picking up five pieces of paper, and if you just read it you can understand aboriginal culture throughout British Columbia. It depends very much on where you're working and the band you're working with and the language. So we have insisted that social workers also need to understand the particulars of the area in which they're working.

As well, I think we have some really important opportunities for cross-cultural sharing, which is an active part of the work of our regional aboriginal advisories that are assisting with current planning and implementation for the Ministry for Children and Families. In each of our 20 regions there are also aboriginal advisory committees that work with each of the regional operating officers, again assuming that it's closer to home and that therefore they will know better what is needed for their own particular communities.

[10:45]

Let me go back to one question that came up with regard to the Kampman case, but it came up in other situations as well. When difficulties arose in the past, did foster parents have difficulty conveying to the courts and to the social workers their understanding of the needs of the children? In some cases they were almost regarded as out of the picture or biased or whatever, and they were discarded. When we inquired about this, the response was given: "Oh well, you're only a caregiver, so you have no legal position, no legal responsibility. You've been hired to do your job. You're finished, and you have no input to give." That has been a concern that's been around for some time.

Hon. P. Priddy: First let me say that for a foster child that is living. . . . It's an old hat of mine and not a political one, but the person who knows the child best is the person who spends the most time with the child and knows what they are like at midnight or at 4 o'clock in the morning, or whether the best time to teach somebody to do something is 8 o'clock in the morning or 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

In our agreement with Foster Care 2000. . . . While I did say that we hadn't released it, I did hear about it on CBC this morning. So I shall now try not to make all of our new announcements while doing estimates. One of the really important statements in this document is that foster parents are professionals, and they are an integral part of the professional team that is involved in helping to give information, sometimes make decisions -- not always, but at least have the professional input and information into which a larger group makes decisions. And we have that agreement now.

M. Coell: I find that to be a very positive step forward in bringing foster parents more into the loop with the whole planning process. I think the minister is right: the people who know the child best are probably the foster parents.

I just want to spend a little time talking about support for foster parents globally. The ministry funds the BCFFPA, which is the umbrella organization, and I wonder if the minister can tell me how much the funding is this year. Has it changed from last year?

Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding -- and please, quickly check and see if I am wrong -- is that the amount of money for BCFFPA is $1.6 million, and that covers quite a range. That covers regional training and the opportunity to provide support to staff. There is a list of the services that we have agreed will be provided for that service, but it's $1.6 million.

M. Coell: My understanding is that other than some very minor volunteer funds, that is the major part of their budget. One of the questions I have goes back to people being critical of the system while they are a foster parent, and this group getting all of its funding from the government. It isn't as independent, I guess, because of that funding. I just wonder whether the minister has considered ways of allowing more independent thought in this group, and if they don't need it, tell me they don't need it. But it appears that if you are funding something 100 percent and that group is trying to be critical of government, they might be in fear of losing their funds.

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue has been raised before, so we have indeed given some thought to that. In some ways, this organization is like other contracted organizations. We contract with it for a service which otherwise would have to be delivered by hiring X number of new employees in government. We have chosen to contract with an organization that we think has skill and expertise, particularly around providing training and support to foster parents. I also think that you can choose to go down a couple of roads with organizations.

I've been on the other side in advocacy groups that don't receive government money or choose not to receive government money. I don't think, for foster parents. . . . Most other organizations that get dollars get them from service organizations around the province that belong to them. These aren't service organizations; these are individual foster parents, so I think that if we did not contract with them for this service, it either would not happen or you'd have to bring it inside government and hire more staff to do that.

It is the reason that we have worked towards a contract with them. This isn't simply a sort of turning over of dollars 

[ Page 6291 ]

and saying: "So now, go run your organization." The Foster Care 2000 contract that's laid out, in terms of what we expect of the dollars that we give to the B.C. foster parent association, is like any other contract -- or like any other contract should be, and we're working to have them all be -- in that it lays out very carefully the things that we expect, and you monitor on that basis. If people can't deliver that, then you have to review that in a different way.

You can go down an adversarial road with people -- and sometimes you have to do that -- or you can work in partnership with people. It sure seems to us around children in foster care that the more partnerships that you can build, the better.

M. Coell: I think the point that I was trying to make is that in the past, the BCFFPA haven't been able to be a resource for foster parents who are in disagreement with the government. I see that as maybe changing with the Foster Care 2000 and some of the other dispute resolution and process agreements that you're getting into that hopefully will stem some of the problems that arise -- not to say that problems still aren't going to arise from time to time; people do have different ways of coping with different problems. So I think that that will be of benefit.

Does the ministry have any increases in programs and increases in funds this year over last year for this group?

[11:00]

M. Coell: Just one last question on foster care. One of the complaints that we on the opposition side get from foster parents is about the information they get from government. They may have three or four social workers in a year working with the child that's in foster care, and a number of other different professionals, who don't share as much information as the foster parent would like. They sometimes feel that they have to go out digging for it and they're not brought into the circle. The minister may have covered this, but with this new group, do you see that role changing and there being a requirement for caregivers and social workers to give that information to foster parents?

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to say three things. The first one is that regardless of the fact that we have what we think is a piece of work that people have worked very hard at -- agreement with Foster Care 2000 and with the organization. . . . Even if that was not there, it is still not acceptable that information is not shared. I'm not sure that having this on a piece of paper says that that will automatically guarantee that. That should happen whether there's this piece of paper or not. Parents should have the information. Foster parents, or prospective foster parents, or foster parents where new information has been discovered that they need to know, need to be given that information by social workers. In some ways, this may put more form and function to that, but not having this is not an excuse for that not happening, regardless.

Secondly, we have new foster care guidelines -- just released, actually -- which talk about the rights of foster parents: the right to information, what they can expect from their social worker. I think it's just off the press last week. That will be given to every new foster parent and prospective parent as well, so if somebody says, "Well, no, I can't tell you this," there is a book that talks to them about their rights.

I want to go back to a comment I made about foster parents knowing the most about the child. I'm not going to take that back, but I don't in any way want to denigrate how much parents know. In many cases with children in foster families, there is a lot of contact with their natural family -- their birth family. So I was not in any way suggesting that birth families do not also have a tremendous amount to offer in that respect.

M. Coell: I understood the minister to be commenting in that direction. I'd like to thank the minister for her comments on foster care. From time to time there will be issues that come up, and I feel comfortable in bringing them to her and her staff.

I wonder if we could move on to adoption services at this point. I wonder if, firstly, the minister could explain to us the policy on adoption. I realize there have been quite a few changes -- changes in costs, changes in who is funded, the agencies that deliver adoption services. I wonder if the minister could briefly outline for me the policy of the ministry towards adoption.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's an oxymoron. When I said it's an oxymoron, explaining it briefly is maybe something I can do and maybe something I cannot. We'll try and make that assessment.

It's important for me to remember why the changes came about in the first place, after what was probably one of the most extensive consultations in the history of British Columbia, as I recall it. People wanted to know several things. They wanted to know that there were consistent standards, that consistent protocols and practices were used in adoption, regardless of where you were adopting your child from and the age of the child, or however that was happening. That was not necessarily the case when it was hundreds and hundreds of different people who were doing that.

I will try to be as succinct as I can. If you look at the act, aside from giving paramount consideration in every respect to the child's best interests, it really is based on four principles: balance, fairness, freedom of choice and the best interests of the child. If I were to try to do the highlights of the act for you. . . . This was the very first thing I talked about when I became the minister. It was interesting for me. I'm an adopted child -- not from British Columbia -- but it certainly caused me to do a lot more thinking about adoption acts.

One of the highlights of this new act says that the child has a greater say in the adoption, which is new -- and particularly important. All adoptions must meet specific requirements: that it's not a different requirement depending on who is arranging the adoption; that birth parents and adoptive parents have more options for openness. That's something which I think we saw a little bit of in practice. I wouldn't suggest it never happened, but the act now says that it will happen. You may find other stories, but I've talked to a lot of birth parents, both moms and dads -- because there's also an involvement of dads now, which is a bit different -- and the adoptive parents. They will talk about the fact that in the beginning they didn't know how openness would work. They didn't know if having a birth mom visit -- I don't know, once a month, once every three months, whatever people agreed on in the beginning -- was actually going to work. They are really, really pleased with how that's worked out for their family. So there are far more options for openness.

Aboriginal birth parents and bands and communities have greater opportunities to plan for their own children, and -- I alluded to this -- a registry has been established to assist birth fathers to become involved in planning for their chil-

[ Page 6292 ]

dren. I don't think we would have seen that. . . . Well, this is unique adoption legislation -- probably not in more than one or two places in North America, so it is very unique. The part about birth fathers, I think, is quite unique as well -- and I think particularly important. So there is a registry for birth dads who want to become involved in planning for their children.

Just to conclude the highlights, adults who were adopted in British Columbia and their birth parents are able to obtain some identifying information about each other, except when a disclosure veto has been filed, and we have some numbers on that if you would like to have those. A post-adoption openness registry, which we do provide support for, provides an opportunity for adoptive parents and birth parents and other relatives to exchange information. It's one thing to go and find information through vital statistics about a birth name; it's another huge step to decide, or try to at least make the decision, about whether you're going to make contact or not. Therefore there is an organization that helps people walk that walk. I think those are the highlights I would mention.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for those. I think there is a significant change to government policy on adoption from many years ago, and I'm sure the minister knows more than I do about that. Are adoptions on the rise or declining? What's the position, relatively, over the last few years?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think I would have to define for you -- and I'm hoping somebody can pull up the numbers for me -- whether we're talking about adoptions where somebody comes to. . . .

I'm sorry. What I should have said earlier is that there are also now, I think, seven adoption agencies in communities where parents can go to facilitate them with adoption. Previously in many cases they'd come to the ministry.

But if you're talking about I guess what I would have called -- in my day, because I was adopted in 1944 -- the blond-haired, blue-eyed baby girl with no seeming difficulties at that time, that number is very small. I looked it up just a little bit ago. . . . I don't see it here, but I think it's something like. . . . It's really small. Sorry, just give me a sec because I know I've actually seen it.

In terms of the sort of typical infant I just described to you, probably not more than 50 or 60. So those numbers are dropping considerably and have been dropping over a period of time. You know, we all can sort of talk about the reasons and probably know the reasons in terms of supports and changes in social values and so on. So that's sort of, you know, the little infant that someone in British Columbia releases for adoption or makes eligible for adoption here.

But last year there were. . . . I wanted to make sure that I could understand the graph correctly. It is a declining trend, actually, in almost all areas, hon. member. If you look at the difference between, say, 1991-92 and 1996-97 in intercountry adoptions, if you will, the number has gone from 248 in 1991-92 to 145 in 1996-97. So, again, it's a downward trend. In terms of the entire total, in 1991-92 it was 674 and in 1996-97 it was down to 483. So we are seeing in all areas of adoption a declining trend.

M. Coell: I would like to spend some time on the different categories of adoptions and the costs of adoptions. I'd like to spend some time -- and I know my colleagues also have questions -- on special needs adoptions, international adoptions and non-ministry adoptions, so I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[11:15]

"I am writing in response to new regulations under the recently implemented Adoption Act, Bill 51. As an adoptee myself and the mother of two internationally adopted children, I am appalled that the government feels that they can justify charging a 300 percent increase for an international adoption home study when the promise from the government was to place less financial burden on prospective adopters and create speedier accessibility in order that children would spend less time in institutions or foster care."

"I fail to see how this can serve the children who are waiting to be adopted or the families who wish to bring a child into their family through adoption. Costs of intercountry adoption are already unbelievably high. Most families choose this route because they cannot put themselves through the stress of the waiting game that a local adoption often entails or don't fit ministry criteria for adoption. Families often put themselves into debt in order to have a family. All this often comes hot on the heels of years of frustration with infertility and the various costs, both financial and emotional, that this incurs.

"We had personally paid out close to $25,000 for fertility procedures prior to choosing to adopt from Guatemala. We paid $40,000 for our two adoptions, and on top of this were the costs of the home study and airfares. By sharing these costs, I am not trying to put a price tag on the head of our children but to emphasize the financial lengths some people have to go to achieve their dreams of a family. People who are able to have their family without medical procedures are not subject to these costs or any of the rigours exacted by a home study. With the new legislation, the cost will increase considerably. If it were not so expensive, we would love to adopt further children and afford them the opportunity of not living in poverty. This bill makes what was already a financial pipe dream a definite impossibility.

"Previously there were a number of social workers who were available to conduct home studies. This is the unpleasant experience of having an outsider go through your lifestyle and personal history with a fine-toothed comb. It involved three visits to an office, and a home visit to inspect if you and your home are suitable for a child. Now, with the new legislation, instead of having a list of 40 social workers to choose from, who are located throughout the province, these home studies are to be conducted through one of five agencies, one of which is not even in this province.

"It is also difficult to understand why home studies for intercountry adoption are to cost $750 more than a local adoption. Social workers who used to conduct these studies also fail to understand the rationale behind this. Whilst I understand that no one wishes to put children into families where they may be in any risk, I cannot see why it has to cost so much more for a less accessible service.

"The government purports to place the 'best interests of the child' as the basis for its policies. This legislation as it currently stands will leave children in care longer, and some children will fail to be placed due to excessive costs. I would be interested to learn how this new legislation is in the children's best interests. I am outraged by a government who can implement legislation on fees for adoption placement with no consultation with the adoption community. I perceive these fees as discriminatory against families who are not related by blood. I urge you to make necessary amendments to the new legislation to reflect the real needs of adoptive families."

[ Page 6293 ]

The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, I would like to caution members that it is the practice of the House to have excerpts from letters read, at times, but certainly not full letters. The other point I have to make is that legislation is not suitable debate for this committee.

B. McKinnon: I think the question out of this letter is: how can the ministry increase fees so dramatically -- 300 percent? That is not in the best interests of children. Basically, the question is: why have you done so?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the first point I would make. . . . I have heard parents say: "This is with no consultation with adoptive parents." There may be people in the room -- I'm not sure. . . . This was an enormous consultation process across this province with birth parents, adoptive parents and people who were doing private home studies. It was not one that I was part of, but it was an enormous consultation. Did every single person get consulted? Perhaps they did not, as you never would in consultation, but it was actually an extremely extensive one.

It's hard to do comparisons, because when you look at. . . . Let's take intercountry adoptions as an example. What people would have seen before was a broken-down cost -- the cost of the home study done by the private social worker, then the cost of the lawyer. I think it's very difficult to do that kind of comparison. When we have tried to do that, we have found. . . . In Canada, I think we are in about the middle, if I'm not mistaken, in terms of the range of costs. We are about in the middle of the rest of the country in terms of what it costs to adopt. So it is hard to do, because it was broken down in other kinds of costs before -- the lawyer, court costs, the study and so on. I think it is difficult for people to make that comparison.

But I can tell you, if you like, how the costs are arrived at. The ministry fee schedule is simply based on the number of hours required to complete a specific task, which is a good, safe, secure home study. As an example, a domestic home study is estimated to take about 40 hours. Therefore, based on a social worker's salary, etc., the cost tends to be around $1,400 for the amount of time it takes to do a home study. One of the things that we did find in the adoption consultation around the province was that some people did home studies that may have taken this long and therefore cost this much; and some people did home studies that had no criteria attached at all, and therefore you were not necessarily getting the same kind of thorough home study that consistent criteria would show is now happening.

For an intercountry home study, which is an additional cost, it takes about 60 hours and the fee comes to about $2,200. In addition to all of the other matters that you have to address in a domestic home study, the intercountry home study also has to include an additional education component around cross-cultural and cross-racial issues and issues particularly related to institutionalization of children, because many of the children in intercountry adoptions have been institutionalized for periods of time. I think it's fairly widely recognized that intercountry adoptions do take additional time and particular expertise.

I want to respond to one other issue, if I can, and then I want to tell you what we may be doing about it. There are seven adoption agencies that are legislated or registered, if you will, in British Columbia. They are all British Columbia-based; they are all registered in British Columbia. Some of them may have branches in other provinces, but they are all British Columbia-based.

The other thing I've certainly asked social workers that I've been working with in our community, if you will, is to ensure that people know, and we've asked people throughout the province. . . . Anyone who is applying to adopt -- people say "healthy infant" and it's not a phrase I'm very comfortable with -- an infant without additional special needs can certainly request an income test to determine if fees can be reduced or waived. I have worked with a number of people out of my own constituency office for whom the fee has been either reduced or has been waived, because for them it has been too high. They have not been able to meet that fee, and we've either reduced it or waived it for them.

B. McKinnon: Is the minister telling me that if I want to adopt a child internationally and I don't have the money, it's possible to have the fees reduced? Wouldn't that be contradictory to my ability to even look after the child, if you feel that I can't afford it?

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer to the first question is yes, you may. And the answer to the second question is. . . . There would obviously have to be some assessment, but I don't think there is some comparison that says because you don't have X amount of dollars to put out to do this that you can't afford to raise a child. The income test that's used is not the same one that income assistance uses. It has a higher top level, if you will, so more people qualify through it.

G. Wilson: I thank the official opposition critic -- I'm not sure if he's the official critic -- but I thank the critic for the official opposition for giving me an opportunity to enter into this debate. I have a bit of a potpourri, and I hope the minister will forgive me, but. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: No.

G. Wilson: Well, then, I'll have to go on unforgiven. As just one member, it's sort of difficult to get in and out.

Sticking with adoption for a moment, if I might, there have been concerns raised by a number of constituents with respect to the policy that seems to be in place in providing rights for the birth mother to essentially reclaim or recover or to have the child come back after the adoption has been made. I wonder if the minister might just comment on that.

The concern is simply this: there are cases where an adoption has been made and apparently, according to these constituents who are writing in their concerns. . . . Maybe I can just read what the concerns are: "The adoptive parents, after a long and emotional wait, have a child placed with them, knowing that in two and a half weeks, the ministry could remove the child because the birth mother has revoked her consent."

I guess the concern is that if there is a proposition with respect to a 20-day final decision on whether or not there is a child to be placed, that 20 days should elapse prior to the child being placed with the new adoptive parent, rather than having the child placed with the new adoptive parent and then having the situation occur afterward.

[11:30]

It is a delicate balance in ensuring that a birth mom has enough time to ensure that she has been able to think through 

[ Page 6294 ]

this decision. You are right. . . . It's 30 days, actually, but it's ten days until consents are signed and then another 20 days. What actually happens during that time is that they share joint custody of this child or this infant.

I don't have any other response for you on this, but I would be interested in thinking a bit more about this as a result of your comments. I mean, you might be suggesting -- I'm not wishing to put words in your mouth -- that the child therefore not be placed until that waiting time is over, so that that kind of separation does not happen. Is that really what the concern is? I don't think we have actually looked at that at all, but I'm happy to give that some thought.

G. Wilson: I think that would be good. I don't for one second try to suggest we should diminish the rights of the birth mother in terms of having adequate time to fully understand the consequence of her decision and whether or not that is something she is prepared to go along with. But it does seem to me that there's a difference between having a placement, essentially on paper, if I can use that. . . . I don't mean to talk about it in such clinical terms, because these are very emotional issues. But there's a difference between having that placement on paper, as opposed to having the child physically moved to the new adoptive parent, only to have that child then removed, sometimes after many, many months, if not years, of someone waiting to have an adoptive child.

So I'd appreciate if the minister would give some consideration to those issues within her ministry, and if that kind of issue can be dealt with. I don't know if there needs to be a formal response.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm going to resist even a side comment on that.

Again, with adoptive families, there's a rather large number of people who have sent forward what essentially amounts to a bit of a petition. I don't know if it has been raised; if it hasn't, I will raise it. It has to do with special needs adoptive families and supportive care. I know that the BCACL has been actively lobbying the ministry with respect to a number of the criteria that are in place, in terms of the provision of child protection as well as special needs support for special needs children. It can be both in terms of the adoptive parents but also for birth parents who have children with special needs.

On the question of adoptive parents, it would seem that post-adoption support is something that is becoming more and more a concern within the province. If the minister might give us some assurance as to where her ministry is going with post-adoptive support, that would be useful.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's interesting. BCACL, who I meet with on an extremely regular basis, has not raised this with me at all, at this stage. However, undoubtedly it's on the list.

In terms of post-adoption assistance, what happened previously. . . . I want to actually explain how we got to where we are and then what we're doing about it, if I can do both of those things, hon. member. One of them is that what happened previously when you adopted the child -- whether that was at six weeks or two years or whenever -- was if that child was at that time identified as having special needs, then there was support provided. When you actually went through with the adoption, the child had been identified as special needs. If a year or two years from then or when they were ready for school -- which is often what happens -- the child was identified as having a special need, there was no help available whatsoever.

What the change in the funding has done is said that you can have the child identified as. . . . I'm a bit like you, hon. member. You try and find words that aren't clinical. If the child, anytime after the adoption and up to the age of majority, is identified as having a special need that requires additional support, then you can apply for that additional support. There are some conditions around that, although there is also. . . . I'm asking Ron, actually, if he'll check with me for the amount. There is a certain amount that they will get regardless, and then there's a certain amount that they may be entitled to, which would depend on income. What it has done is extended those dollars as much as we can, right to the age of majority, rather than saying: "Well, if you didn't know when you adopted, we're sorry; it's too late." That's the first point.

Secondly, under Ron Willems, the director of adoptions, we have begun a review of all of those children who are currently receiving adoption assistance to see whether the new system has either put people in a position where they are, if you will, "worse off" and where they don't have enough resources for their child, or whether the policy has made any kind of difference economically. There are actually about 346 family situations that we're currently reviewing.

G. Wilson: In the review, are we looking at additional support from the time the assessment determines the special need, or would the special support be retroactive to the time of the placement? When does it start?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is not retroactive. It's from the time of placement.

G. Wilson: Okay, if I can just clarify in my own mind, it seemed to me that there were two. . . . It's either from the time of assessment, the time that the child was assessed, or if they are placed as a special needs child. For example, if there is an adoptive parent who adopts a child who clearly, through its development, demonstrates signs that there are some issues that need to be looked at, they are going to be tested and at some point they may be determined to have special needs, whatever those needs may be. Now the question is: will the parent be able to then claim that additional support retroactive to the time of the placement, or will they only be able to claim from the time that the child was actually assessed?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's from the time of assessment.

G. Wilson: Now, it's my understanding that there are some rather outstanding families in British Columbia who come forward and adopt children with special needs because they have particular parenting skills and because they have a desire to do service, I guess, for children with special needs. I understand that a number of these families are now coming together and networking to try to see if they can't be a sort of network of mutual support. One of the concerns that is being expressed to me by a number of adoptive parents of children with special needs is that the amount of financial support that's coming in is going to make it more and more difficult for families who are middle-income and lower, because of the rising cost of living and so on, to continue with that service.

I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not there is an active review going on with respect to looking at the actual specific costs, and whether or not we can give some 

[ Page 6295 ]

rather good news to these families that are doing, I think, an outstanding job in most cases in dealing with children who really do have some special needs.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think there are three parts to the answer, and I will make an effort to be succinct. One of them is that we have been. . . . There is a group that has come together. Actually, it's a group that we work quite actively with, which is the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents. They have actually worked quite actively with us through the entire adoption changes, and had in their fall newsletter all of the information about the changes for special needs parents or special needs adoptive parents.

As I mentioned, there is a review going on of those people currently receiving assistance from the government. There is, I think, about another 25 percent being added to the budget this year in order to provide additional support as it may become necessary for parents, but there is not a current review going on. I think it's a bit hard to do, because. . . . It's hard to do a review of whether it is enough money, because every child will need. . . . Well, it's hard to say that if you have a child with Down's syndrome, they will need X amount, or if you have a child with cerebral palsy, they will need X amount. But there are reviews being done on an individual basis to see if families require more.

G. Wilson: Moving along with respect to people with developmental disabilities, and children in particular, there seems to be some concern that when the new regional operating officers come in, with the amalgamation that has taken place, there is going to be inconsistency between the regions as to who is actually going to be providing care to children. Certainly the information that is coming forward -- and again, the source of this is BCACL -- is that the ROOs, regional operating officers. . . . For Hansard, that's R-O-O-s, which sounds like something out of Winnie the Pooh. There are 11 from Human Resources, eight from child protection, three from services to people with mental handicaps, three from the Ministry of Health, and six from Corrections. Their concern, if I can just read you what they have said, is: "That means that the person in charge of services for your family could be from corrections branch and may have limited exposure, experience and knowledge about the type and level of services and support that people with disabilities may require." I wonder what the ministry is doing to counter that. Is that in fact a correct assumption? If so, what is the ministry doing to counter it?

Hon. P. Priddy: Might I ask, without it being presumptive, the date of the letter? The reason I ask is that we have been working very hard, and we do have an agreement with BCACL.

G. Wilson: Actually, there are a number. The first set of letters were on February 21, and then there are subsequent letters in March, April and mid-May.

Hon. P. Priddy: This has been very challenging since September 23; however, I don't think. . . . Well, I shouldn't say you won't receive more letters, but we have reached an agreement with BCACL around children -- around how that will be handled in individual regions and who will be providing services. BCACL has signed off with us on how that will work in individual regions, and they have had access to each and every one of the 20 regional plans and have signed off on each of them. It has taken quite some time to do, but it is done.

[11:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

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