(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 28, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 7, Number 10
Part 1
[ Page 6407 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Janssen: With us today are two visitors from Toronto: Bruce Cox and Una O'Reilly. They are visiting Victoria and, of course, the beautiful riding of Alberni and Long Beach. Una is an employee with the Ontario government, and Bruce is a longtime employee with the Ontario NDP. I ask the House to make them welcome.
B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Gary Grewal, president of my riding association; Jassa Grewal, vice-president of the Surrey-Newton B.C. Liberal riding association; and a friend of theirs visiting from Birmingham, England: Sital Singh Rana. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Brewin: Visiting us in the gallery today are Debbie Saum and her daughter Megan, who are visiting Victoria from Saskatchewan. Debbie is very interested in the work of the Legislative Assembly because she is the executive assistant to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Would the House please join me in making Debbie and her daughter welcome.
J. Doyle: I'm very pleased to have Ken and Betsy Shimberg, from New York City, joining the members of the House at question period today. They are spending one year travelling throughout the world. They will spend a couple of nights with us -- my family -- in Golden, and they are here today to watch question period. Make them welcome.
I. Chong: Today I am pleased to introduce to this Legislature the mayor of Oak Bay, His Worship Mr. Christopher Causton, and his daughter Sarah, who have come to watch the proceedings today. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Dalton: Last Thursday, Nancy Bell-Irving passed away. Nancy was the wife of Henry Bell-Irving, a former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you could send a letter of condolence on behalf of all members.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. I would be happy to do that on behalf of the assembly.
L. Reid: Visiting us today are four of my dearest friends: Tom and Toni Morisson, Sharon Gill and Carl Boyce. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
M. Sihota: Of course, all members of the House know that British Columbia has the best economy of any place in North America and that people from North America are flocking to live here. I'm sure all members of the House would be delighted to join me in welcoming Mark Messier to British Columbia.
B. Goodacre: In the House today we have a special guest from Good Hope Lake, one of the northern communities in my constituency. Mary Reid is the principal of Mount Pendleton School there. I ask the House to please make her welcome.
STANDARD OF CARE AND SECURITY
AT RECOVERY HOUSES
My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Having abandoned these people, why doesn't his ministry make sure that they are directed to facilities where they can at least be safe?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's amazing that the Liberal opposition just can't seem to get it right when it comes to where the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources ends and extends to. But what I will say is that it came to light during the examination of my estimates that the Liberal opposition doesn't even have a policy on social services. They abandoned it after the last election, hon. Speaker. They talk about taking the next 18 months to two years to form a policy on social services, and they stand in this House and tell us that we have abandoned these folks. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you for the silence.
The Ministry of Human Resources supports individuals with a cheque when they are in need. The Ministry of Human Resources does not direct individuals to housing. It does not supply housing for individuals, nor do we fund these houses in any way.
G. Campbell: We simply can't wash our hands of these people. The fact of the matter is that some of the houses that are called recovery houses provide a service, but there are a number -- and the minister should know about these -- that are run by
My question to the minister is: why would you allow that to happen? Why would you allow people to go to places that are unlicensed, where they don't stand a chance to recover?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this once again for the leader of the bland. In fact, hon. Speaker, the Ministry of Human Resources does not direct individuals to houses. We don't fund these recovery homes in any way. I would suggest very strongly
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members, please. Let's hear the answer.
[ Page 6408 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: Actually, the Liberal House Leader wants to know what I do. What I do is generally cooperate with my caucus, I understand what our cabinet is up to, and I cooperate with my colleagues in the House.
If the Leader of the Opposition has evidence that there is something going on in one of these recovery houses that is operated by a convicted drug dealer, I think he should bring it forward to the Attorney General and have the situation dealt with.
G. Campbell: We have a number of people in this province who have decided they want to try to get better. Many of those people are on social assistance. Many of those people receive public funds for that assistance. Those public funds go directly into the hands of people who are running recovery houses that are in fact places where there's abuse, where people are living six to a room. Does the minister not know? Why would the minister allow those people
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I stand a little puzzled here. My first two answers
Interjections.
Hon. D. Streifel: Actually, the confession of the session for the Liberal House Leader was all over the papers last week. If you want to expand on it, hon. Speaker, we can go to it. That Liberal House Leader campaigned last May to cut $500 million out of the social services budget. I think that's absolutely despicable.
For the education of the Leader of the Opposition, the Ministry of Human Resources doesn't fund these houses. If individuals on income assistance choose to go to these places and spend their money in a room-and-board structure, we don't control the actions of these individuals. As far as I understand, in this country they still make free choices -- not like the members opposite.
M. Coell: There are over a thousand private recovery beds in British Columbia, all of them unlicensed, unregulated and unsupervised. As we saw last week with Skeleem Village, when the government directly or indirectly sends people to private facilities for treatment, they have a responsibility to ensure that the facility is safe and not just a front for receiving social assistance cheques. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us why the government has done nothing to license, monitor and supervise recovery houses?
Hon. D. Streifel: Now we know why the polls are as they are. They just can't seem to figure out who has jurisdiction.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Streifel: Chew away, chew away, folks.
For the members opposite, the licensing, regulation and funding of drug and alcohol treatment centres is not under the Ministry of Human Resources. I hope that's plain enough for the members to understand.
M. Coell: My understanding is that many of the operators of these houses have no qualifications and no credentials. In fact, the sole criterion for receiving a social assistance cheque from the government is to sign their name to a form, and the government sends the cheque to the recovery house. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us what his ministry does look into when they allow these recovery houses to get cheques from his ministry for people in his care?
[2:15]
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I waited a long time, and I got four in a row now where the answer is the same.The funding for drug and alcohol treatment centres does not come under
An Hon. Member: There's actually five, Dennis.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Streifel: Is it five? That's pretty good. Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have just reminded me that they nailed five questions in a row out of order, not four.
But, in fact, funding for these facilities does not come under this ministry. I explained it to the member opposite all through estimates. Then he couldn't understand it. He couldn't understand then what the difference was between a government that has a policy and an opposition that abandoned its policy, that stands up on "Voice of the Province" and says: "We have no policy; we have no direction." Hon. Speaker, with an opposition party without a policy on social services, I don't think the ministry has a critic.
R. Coleman: My question is to the Attorney General. There is a recovery house in Surrey called Clean Cartel. This recovery house is located directly across the street from Cedar Hills Elementary School. In a recent article the director of Clean Cartel said that the house receives referrals from the corrections branch. Can the Attorney General tell us why he would refer drug and alcohol abusers to an unregulated, unlicensed and unqualified recovery house, directly across the street from an elementary school?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously these are very important questions. It's important for hon. members to know that Corrections refers people to various agencies and facilities based on certain guidelines. I don't have them in place here, now, in my hand. I'd be happy to take the question on notice and get back to the hon. member.
The Speaker: I think, minister, that the question has been answered, so I think it is now open
R. Coleman: The question is to the Attorney General again. One of the directors of the Clean Cartel recovery house is René Tanguay. On April 15, 1996, Mr. Tanguay was arrested for possession of cocaine. Five months later he pled guilty to possession and was fined $700. Can the Attorney General tell us why he is sending recovering addicts to a house which has as one of its directors an individual convicted of cocaine possession less than ten months ago?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take the question on notice.
G. Plant: The question for British Columbians is not what this government says it is doing about something -- and here
[ Page 6409 ]
the problem is drug and alcohol abuse -- but: is the government actually doing something about the problem? Now we know, Mr. Speaker. The government closes detox centres and sends drug and alcohol addicts to recovery houses run by convicted drug possessors, in which crime and drug use are rampant -- right across the street from elementary schools. So my question to the Attorney General is this
Interjections.
G. Plant: I wonder if the Municipal Affairs minister's helper writes the heckles for those guys down at the other end of the hall.
My question is for the Attorney General: is this what he means when he talks about his government's commitment to public safety?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I took the question on notice, and I repeat that answer.
G. Plant: Last week we heard about problems inside the corrections branch; now we are hearing about problems outside the branch. The prisons of British Columbia
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I am going to hear this question.
G. Plant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prisons of British Columbia are overcrowded. Remand inmates sleep on the floor in pretrial centres, and now we have a frightening picture of what happens to people who are trying to get rid of problems that got them into trouble with the law in the first place.
So my question for the Attorney General is this: when will he stop talking about his commitment to public safety and start doing something about it?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are going into an expanded diversion program in British Columbia in October. Consultation and planning is underway, and we have been holding discussions across the province. We want to make sure that the overcrowded facilities that the hon. member talks about aren't overcrowded with criminals who don't need to be in jails -- who need to be out in the communities repaying their debts to the communities -- while violent offenders are out on the loose. They should be behind bars; that's what we want to do.
We do not want to be building jails, jails and jails. If we continue on the track that we are, we would be spending over $1.2 billion in the next ten years replacing jails or building new jails. Certainly the hon. member isn't suggesting that we should be doing that. What he's suggesting is that we should be providing treatment for people out in the communities, and we're going to be doing that.
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING
K. Krueger: We've obtained a copy of a Club Keno survey conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. To anyone but the NDP the results really aren't surprising: British Columbians do not want more gambling in B.C. According to the survey, over 58 percent of respondents said that they do not believe we need more forms of gambling in B.C. Even 31 percent of Club Keno players said that.My question is to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment: will he finally listen to the citizens of British Columbia and put a stop to this massive and dangerous expansion of gambling?
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I think we have listened very carefully to British Columbians. We have designed a very modest expansion of gaming opportunities -- the opportunity to develop new jobs, economic opportunities in the tourism business. All of the surveys I've seen indicate that British Columbians support the direction we're going. We've had substantive debates, although we have a difference. So no, we're not contemplating any change in the policy that we have established.
K. Krueger: There is nothing modest about a 2,000 percent increase in betting limits in B.C. and a 1,800 percent increase in projected revenue. Over 48 percent of these respondents agreed that addiction to Club Keno will become a serious problem. An astounding 37 percent of Club Keno players themselves said that addiction to Club Keno will become a serious problem.
My question, again, to the Deputy Premier is: why does he continue to ram gambling expansion down the throats of British Columbians when it is clear that British Columbians don't want it, nor the social costs that will go with it?
Hon. D. Miller: That is not what we're doing. As I said, we have probably the most restrictive gaming policy in Canada -- in North America -- here in British Columbia. We designed an expansion policy that gives municipalities the right to determine whether or not there will be expansion in their communities.
It's pretty clear that the members opposite don't seem to have faith in municipal governments to determine what's appropriate for their communities. It's clear that many communities where Liberal members were elected are considering the possibilities of expanded gaming; it's their choice. I would hope that when those issues come up, rather than take this kind of approach, the members opposite would actually sit down with municipal leaders to discuss in an intelligent way whether or not it makes sense for their communities. So really, we are proceeding.
You know, I think this member may have gotten his last question in on gaming this year. Congratulations!
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Members, before calling for orders of the day, I want to advise you that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and we expect him to come to the chamber at 3 o'clock. So if members would indeed make themselves available, that, of course, would be appropriate and appreciated.
[ Page 6410 ]
In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
On section 1.
The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yeah.
[2:30]
L. Reid: I thank the Minister of Education for his exuberance; however, there are a number of issues I wish to raise in terms of section 1, basically making some comparisons between the existing University Act and the Technical University of British Columbia Act. The first question is: why was the term "assembly" chosen over "convocation"?Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a good day to be debating the province's newest university here.
The term "assembly" rather than "convocation" was chosen only to choose a word that had fewer traditional connotations. As far as I'm aware, it includes the members who would be members of a convocation.
L. Reid: Seeking further clarification, "teaching staff member" in this act replaces the traditional term -- if that's the minister's analogy of why tradition is in place -- of "faculty member." Could the minister respond as to why?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The term "teaching staff member" was used in this act rather than the term "faculty member" for a couple of reasons. There are some similarities; I want to first make that clear. A teaching staff member means a person who is recognized by the board "as teaching, giving instruction or doing research on behalf of the university." It encompasses those responsibilities. There are some differences. Teaching staff members at this university will not have tenure under the more traditional University Act, and it is the belief of those who were working on the advisory committee around this university that this would enable the university to be more responsive to changing educational priorities.
L. Reid: To advance an issue that the minister just raised, he has indicated that these instructors will not have tenure.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's correct.
L. Reid: The concern -- or perhaps the next step, if you will -- is that they will be subject to some kind of seniority rating, as are other colleges in the current scenario. If you're taking away tenure, my question is whether or not that's being replaced with something.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Any employee of this institution, including teaching staff members, would have the right to either negotiate the terms and conditions of employment for himself or herself or form with others to negotiate collectively: either, as some faculty members do in current universities, reach a staff agreement outside of a labour relations act, or seek certification and negotiate a collective agreement under a labour relations act.
L. Reid: Certainly this discusses teaching staff member. Given that this is a technical university and should be on the leading edge of science and technology, is there also a research staff member component?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Researchers are included within this definition. To quote the definition, it says very clearly that a "teaching staff member means a person recognized for the purposes of this act by the board as teaching, giving instruction or doing research" -- and I want to emphasize that research is part of the duties at this university -- "on behalf of the university."
L. Reid: For my clarification, could the minister kindly respond as to whether or not those three roles will be contained within the same individual? Are we going to have an employee of this institution who is solely responsible for research, as an example? Or will every teaching employee be required to teach as part of their curriculum load?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The duties of any particular teaching staff member would be a matter of assignment and/or negotiation between senior administrators and/or the board and the member. My expectation would be that the great majority of teaching staff members would be doing both teaching and research, as is the case at the colleges and universities in British Columbia now.
L. Reid: On a personal note, I would be remiss if I didn't ask the minister to kindly introduce those individuals accompanying him today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for reminding me of my responsibilities and the protocol here. Mr. Jim Soles is the director of universities and institutes within my ministry, and Stella Bailey is the manager of legislation within the ministry.
L. Reid: Welcome to both of you.
The minister is aware, I believe, of the letter written by the College-Institute Educators Association. It has been shared with all members of the Legislature. In that we are in section 1, " 'university' means the Technical University of British Columbia established by this act," I simply want to take a moment to put on record the conclusion reached by CIEA and their concern that they wish expressed: "If the government proceeds in its current direction, British Columbia will end up with an institution which drains resources from existing post-secondary institutions, duplicates their services and fails to meet the needs of local communities. In current economic times it is an expensive mistake." That is the conclusion they are reaching about the debate we are currently engaged in regarding the technical university, and it seems to me that some of these concerns are valid.
We haven't found a university in this province today that will tell you that they are appropriately funded, sufficiently funded or, frankly, even adequately funded. It seems to me that if we are going to share the resources -- divide the pie into, again, another piece -- are there some assurances today that this minister can share with this Legislature as to some level of assurance around future funding? Today we are push-
[ Page 6411 ]
ing educational institutions -- K-to-12 and post-secondary -- through the hoops in terms of asking, again and again and again, for them to do more with less. Are we at the stage where we can continue to give that directive? I don't believe we are, and I ask the question: how much more for how much less? If the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm unclear about whether I should tell you to rule this out of order because it would have been more proper in estimates or because it would have been more proper at second reading. Let me just respond very, very briefly to some of the points the member raises.
Unlike other provinces in this country, we have not been reducing the budgets of colleges, universities and institutes. In fact, we've made up every dime of $110 million in federal cuts to post-secondary education and have kept the doors of our institutions open to students by freezing tuition and fees. That's the record of this government, and it's a very positive one. At the same time, we've been creating tens of thousands of new spaces for students. The Technical University of British Columbia is another major initiative, both to expand the overall number of seats in our system -- and clearly, additional funding is required to fund additional seats -- and also to provide seats that are in a new and very exciting institution that has a different relationship to business and to the community in which it's operating.
I have one other matter of protocol that I need to do, hon. Chair, so before I sit down I will ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the galleries today is my wife Hazel, who is here with us again, to make sure that we're proceeding expeditiously through this legislation so that we have some opportunity for a vacation this summer.
The Chair: Can the House make her welcome, indeed.
L. Reid: I, too, welcome Mrs. Ramsey. Mrs. Ramsey, if your husband answers the questions, I will do my best to proceed effectively through this legislation.
In terms of Mr. Lavalle's comments -- and he is the president of the College-Institute Educators Association of British Columbia -- and the comments that I have raised in the past with this minister, having canvassed ministry responsibilities with him over the past six years, this government takes great delight in suggesting that they have created new spaces in British Columbia. New spaces that are not well funded place a tremendous burden on students in the system, students who find that their tuition goes up, and all of a sudden things that weren't charged for in the past now have a fee or a cost that they did not anticipate.
So if this is a legitimate discussion this afternoon around the costs of post-secondary education -- and I trust that such is the framework on which both this minister and I are engaged -- then the creation of this institution will admit individuals who have not met educational standards in the past. For the most part, many students in the Fraser Valley have not graduated. We know that; it's a matter of public record that their graduation rates have not been consistent with other parts of the province. If that's the case, is this minister going to put in place any levels of outreach around doing some things with students in grades 11 and 12 so that they might make the choice to attend a university?
Given that the minister is also responsible for the K-to-12 system, and given that this is a new opportunity, it would seem to me that that would make good sense. If we are hoping to attract students who actually reside in the Fraser Valley to attend this new university, which this new section 1 will create, it seems to me that we want to have at least local representation in the student body. The minister is well aware -- with the indulgence of the Chair -- that at the University of Northern British Columbia, the student body is not reflective of the local area.
The Chair: Hon. member, we appreciate your questions and your comments very much, but we're on section 1, which is "Definitions," not second reading. So if the member would proceed to make the queries relate to
L. Reid: Exactly right, hon. Chair. We are on the definition of "university," which means "the Technical University of British Columbia established by this Act." My question to the minister, given his full responsibility for K-to-12 and post-secondary in this province, is: is this institution going to behave differently from others? This ministry, this minister and this government have taken great delight in suggesting that it will. My question is: will outreach draw in those 16- and 17- and 18-year-old students, so they actually end up attending this university and end up as graduates? I think that's the goal that both of us share.
The Chair: Hon. minister, on the ruling of the Chair, there is no need to reply to that. That question is out of order.
The member might work on other sections of the bill that might respond better to her queries.
L. Reid: This is, in my view, the appropriate section to canvass this issue, because if this act passes, this new university will be created. For us to have listened for many, many months to this government suggesting that they are indeed creating a new entity, that it's going to be a university in a different form and is going to do things differently
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think when we get to section 2, "Purposes," I will have an adequate opportunity to discuss some of the differences of this university from more traditional institutions.
I did want to just say very briefly that I do hope that we do stay on committee stage here. I heard members of the Liberal opposition speak in favour of this bill at second reading, and I assumed that meant, on its face, that they agree with the principle of establishing another post-secondary institution in our province. I hope we're proceeding here to debate the ways in which we put that institution in place, as it is contained within Bill 30. The only expensive mistake that I see, hon. member, would be a missed opportunity were we not to proceed in developing this sort of institution for the future of our province.
[2:45]
Section 1 approved.On section 2.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I distinguish three ways in which this institution is different from more conventional universities in
[ Page 6412 ]
the province. First, it is focusing on a particular array of programs and research that it is devoted to. Those are: applied technology and skill-based programs that are responsive to the needs of students, employers and the community, and research in those areas. So that's one difference. We've set out in legislation, in a way that other legislation on universities does not, the specific array of programs that this university shall be focused on.
The second way in which it differs is by the specificity of our expectation that this university will form partnerships with industry -- and by that I include both business and labour -- and other educational institutions with respect to education and applied research and development. This is going to be done, first, to ensure relevancy; second, to avoid duplication; and third, for cost-sharing. I'm unaware of any other institution which has this sort of a mandate for partnerships, a mandate for collaboration spelled out in the legislation that establishes it. At least, it's unique in British Columbia. We may well find others around the world. Indeed, I think the people that did some of the research and community consultation which led to this legislation did look at different models for this sort of post-secondary technological institution.
The third way in which this is different from other universities is that -- as I'm sure the member will tell me from correspondence she's received -- its governance structure differs significantly from more conventional universities. So those are three major ways in which it differs significantly. The purposes spelled out in section 2 speak to at least two of those points that I have mentioned.
The member also asked in an earlier question about whether outreach would be part of this university's mandate. My short answer is that I expect outreach from all post-secondary institutions, and I think most of them at least try. Simply by saying that here in the Fraser Valley we are establishing a new technical university with a focus on applied research and jobs in emerging technologies sends a fascinating message to secondary school students and college students in the Fraser Valley. We are establishing a model of an institution with a focus on areas of new and emerging jobs. This is good news and says very clearly to students in the Fraser Valley that there are immense opportunities here for acquiring the skills and training that are needed for good, family-supporting jobs in these emerging sectors of our economy.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his explanations on those three sections. Certainly I know that the minister is aware of some of the concerns that industry has raised in the past regarding the length of university programs and their lack of immediacy. By the time someone moved through a four- or five-year program, the job demand in a particular industry had changed dramatically, and those new graduates were not able to achieve any level of success in the workplace. Given that this is going to be a university, is there some flexibility within this program -- the minister cites applied tech, skill-based programs -- for them to be of a very short duration or for them to be conducted on the worksite and perhaps with ongoing participation by both parties?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Definitely. Given the knowledge that the member has just displayed of the very challenges that this university is being set up to address, I wonder if she wants to submit her résumé for the board?
L. Reid: Don't tempt me, hon. minister.
In terms of your comment about whether or not this will be something that's industry-driven -- and I believe your words were that this institution will form industry partnerships
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to talk about three things in response to the member's question. First, the very structure of the board and university council of the Technical University of British Columbia is designed to enhance precisely the sort of rapid response to a training and education need that the member is talking about. We'll talk about more of those later when we get into a discussion of who is on the board and the council and how they relate to industry as well as to the institution.
The other thing I would mention is that, if you notice, section 2(a) says that the purpose of this university is "to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels
L. Reid: I certainly appreciate the minister's clarification. My concern rests with "certificate," because typically in the past it's meant at least a year, a minimum of one year's worth of training. If this institution is going to reflect the six-week or the six-month program, which is often what is required
Hon. P. Ramsey: In both universities and colleges, certificate is a term usually applied to a course of education or training of less than a year's duration. Currently in both universities and colleges there are such programs for a few weeks -- six weeks.
L. Reid: Certainly when the minister referenced in his initial explanation around specificity of expectation
Hon. P. Ramsey: The sort of requirement for a specific outcome in a particular education program could clearly be required by a firm or a group of firms that was working in partnership with the university; that's precisely the sort of initiative that we're looking for from this university. That's clearly understood by the board and the CEO, the president, of the university right now. I expect that as we appoint board members and members of program advisory committees, that's the perspective that they'll bring.
As far as other measures of accountability, while the university offers certificate and diploma programs and
[ Page 6413 ]
decides which ones to offer within its own governance structure, the decision to offer degree programs, either undergraduate or graduate, is a decision which the minister must also approve.
L. Reid: Just to perhaps ask for further clarification around accountability. If indeed an industry representative were to meet with the university and the course content and training site were agreed to, because I would assume -- and if I'm incorrect, certainly let me know
Many individuals have come to me suggesting that they are going to participate in something that is completely open-ended. I think that's a valid concern. I think that's probably relevant for any new agency or entity, and this one certainly qualifies as being a new institution. Given a tremendous investment of time and resources, say 18 months from now, when the first, new knowledge-based-industry graduate in knowledge base X does not have the skill set, what is the answer, then, for industry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I would hope that industry would not have the sort of unpleasant surprise that the member describes. For one thing, as we'll discuss later, members of industry are intimately involved in program advisory committees at Tech B.C., which actually do the work of specifying the course requirements and training outcomes. This is clearly to an extent far greater than at any traditional university now. So the very choice of content of programs is industry-driven in a way that is not the case at more conventional universities. That's good news.
Ultimately, of course, if things go so sideways, members of industry that feel they didn't get what they had asked for could work through either the program advisory committee, the council of the university or the board to make sure that their concerns were heard and rectified.
L. Reid: One of the ongoing discussions that this minister and I engage in is around benchmarks, around accountability. Under 2(a), this is going to "contribute to the economic development of British Columbia." How will that be measured?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to say that this sort of contribution to the economic development of British Columbia is something that I think all universities make. In the case of this university I would think that the requirements would probably be even more stringent in terms of saying to the university: "What are your measures of how many graduates you've had in what field? What's their employment record? What's the employer satisfaction with the skills that they've gained?" These are some of the measures of participation that now apply to career programs at colleges. They are not typically applied at universities. It is the expectation that the Technical University of British Columbia would look harder at those measures of actual contribution to the ability of industry to acquire trained personnel and to get on with creating wealth in British Columbia.
L. Reid: I want to certainly go on record at this juncture to state that I think that the institution that probably does it the best today is BCIT, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, in terms of
[3:00]
If I might put my wish list on the record, I would also be interested to know whether or not students who leave for any particular reason before their course is complete actually return and complete the program. It seems to me that we have not collected that data. With such a small number of FTEs, it seems easily done. To me, that's the measure of success of an institution: how many students actually make the commitment. It may take them longer than the prescribed length of time, but it's that they actually return and do some good things.To just count numbers without following through on individual students to know exactly how that program has impacted on their lives, on their economic stability, I think would be missing the mark. If that can be the long-term goal for this brand-new institution -- and knowing full well that provinces very rarely have the opportunity to do something from the ground up, and that this is at ground level
If, under section 2(a), that's the goal -- secure economic development and long-term economic stability -- for the individual student, I would welcome this minister's commitment that indeed that information will be available to me when I again pose these questions to the minister during the estimates debate.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just let me say a couple of things. First, the way in which the Technical University of British Columbia is delivering courses will differ significantly from more traditional institutions. They expect to be delivering fewer than half of actual hours of instruction on site in a facility, and more than half in an employer's worksite, by distance education, by distributed learning or by a variety of other models.
Second, they expect to be structuring programs so they can be entered into, taken and completed by students in a fashion that's far different from the four years on campus of a more traditional university. It could well look like some of the programs that are being set up right now at Royal Roads, where people come to campus for a five- or six-week session during the summer and do a variety of independent, self-directed distance education studies during the year while
[ Page 6414 ]
they're actually employed, come back again and, over a period of years, complete a degree or advanced degree. That's the focus of this institution's work.
I appreciated the member's words about BCIT. I will inform her and the chamber -- though I think she already knows -- that I have asked this institution to work very closely and, indeed, form some strategic partnerships with BCIT and with Simon Fraser University as it begins its work. I think this will ensure the kind of responsiveness and accountability that we've seen in BCIT, and it also will ensure that it can get up and offering courses more quickly than would be the case if it were hiring its own teaching staff and administrative staff from scratch, rather than working with other institutions that could provide some of those.
Finally, I wanted to address two concerns. On the small number of FTEs, actually, I would expect that within ten years this will not be the smallest university in the province. It could be significantly larger than the University of Northern British Columbia by that time. It will start small, but it will not stay small.
Finally, I share the member's interest in getting the right measures of accountability and quality for institutions. However, I think it's for good reason that it's not specified in legislation. Frankly, putting any particular measure in legislation has, I think, the potential to tie the hands and fetter the development of the institution's own culture.
Hon. Chair, I've been advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and therefore I would move 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.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is indeed in the precincts. With your permission, and to warn our visitors in the gallery, I'm going to ring the bells.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997
Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1997
Police Amendment Act, 1997
Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Fisheries Renewal Act
Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997
Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Fish Protection Act
Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Offence Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997
Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997
Park Amendment Act, 1997
Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997
Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997
BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997
Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997
Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1997
Tobacco Damages Recovery Act
Building Officials' Association Act
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997
Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997
Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997
Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997
TD Trust Company Act, 1997
The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)
On section 2 (continued).
L. Reid: The minister's last comment was regarding full-time-equivalent students. He indicated that in ten years' time this university may be of a significant size. Could I ask the minister
[3:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right: the target set for the first five years of operation is an FTE count of 2,800. Five[ Page 6415 ]
years from then, it could well be double that. Relative to other universities, its size is a matter for speculation now. It could well be bigger than others.
L. Reid: My interest in asking the minister to confirm the numbers goes back to my original comment -- my concern about accountability and measurement -- that if we're only going to be talking about 2,800 students per year over the next decade and maybe double for the latter part of the decade, if we could track those students much more effectively than has been done in the past, I would welcome that. By the end of the decade, I would love to know whether those students are still employed, whether or not they are seeking additional training, and whether or not the infusion of dollars on behalf of the taxpayer has made a positive impact on their lives. I would like to know if we are able to close the loop in terms of measuring where those students might be in the system as they seek gainful employment.
Under section 2(b) "to conduct applied research and development," under the purposes section of the bill, I would like the minister to spend a moment or two, if he might, on the funding for that research. Is it going to be a public-private partnership scenario? Is it going to be general revenue from the university that funds that research? What possible scenarios might exist?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The sources of funding for research are not dissimilar to other universities. Obviously some from general revenue is given to the university. In addition, there are a variety of research councils that allow faculty or teaching staff to apply for research funds. Then, of course, there are the opportunities for partnerships with industry and of funding of research by industry. Obviously this will be done under a plan formulated by the board and approved by the president. As we'll discuss later, that's one of the requirements of the office of the president at the Technical University of British Columbia.
L. Reid: It's been my experience that a number of university colleges around the province do business with businesses in their communities but purchase research options to explore X for six months. Will this same scenario be reflected under this technical university?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the Technical University of British Columbia will have that ability.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
L. Reid: Section 3(1) states: "The Technical University of British Columbia is established as a corporation composed of the assembly." We have canvassed the use of the term "assembly." Can the minister indicate for the record whether or not this corporation will differ in any way from other university entities that currently exist?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This same provision is included for other universities in the University Act. I think the only difference is the term "assembly" rather than "convocation."
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
L. Reid: My first question on this section
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will respond to that question under this section, though it is a stretch. This talks about the composition of the board of governors, and like others, this board of governors includes students elected by students to serve on the governing board of the university. The member talks specifically about a student association and the ability of students to form such associations at other universities. That is done under the Society Act. The provisions in this legislation on that issue are identical to the provisions under the University Act, which covers the other universities.
I recognize that the member and I -- and, I think, all members of the chamber -- have received correspondence from student associations who wish to see provisions inserted in this act and in the University Act which parallel those in the College Act that require, by legislation, a greater measure of cooperation between student associations and the universities where students are enrolled. I have had those discussions with student representatives myself and have told them I will undertake to discuss that issue with them and with universities in the province with a view to bringing in legislation at future sessions, but not in conjunction with this act.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. However, the concern is valid. When he indicates that the other universities have the option to bring that information forward under the Society Act, the section we just passed says: "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct that
My memory harkens back to 1992, when Tom Perry was the minister, and he recommended that all future universities and institutes include the ability of students to form an association. He made that recommendation, and if this minister is discounting that recommendation, that's an interesting discussion to have on the record today.
What the students are saying is that there needs to be an ability for them to collect student fees, to organize, to impact positively on the future of the organization and to make some contributions around accountability -- for them to have the ability to hold their institution accountable. I mean, this is a public service institution designed to serve students.
They need a mechanism to ensure that they are comfortable around mechanisms, around appeal and around recourse. Without the ability to form an association, those avenues are denied them. There's no question about that. I appreciate that the minister is suggesting that it doesn't fit in this section, but my concern is that it needs to fit somewhere in this act. It truly has been omitted today, which I will put on the record as being a very serious concern.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me deal briefly with some of the concerns the member has raised, because I too take this seriously, and I want to ensure that students in our province
[ Page 6416 ]
have a voice in the running of the institutions in which they are enrolled. First, let me again say that the composition of the board provides for student representation, elected by students, and that is clearly one of the ways in which students at this university will be able to make sure their voices are heard.
Similarly, when we get to section 11, we'll look at student representation on the university council, and I believe we'll also be looking at student representation on program advisory committees. Students will have a voice at all levels of governance of this university. That is important.
The question that the member raises is really a technical one of how students would form a student association to carry out whatever purposes they want to form the association for, whether it's social events, fundraising for athletic facilities or whatever. Student associations that exist in universities are structured under the Society Act. The clause that the member refers to in the third section of this act refers to "the university" not being under the Society Act. That does not apply to a student association. The same provision is in the University Act; student associations form under the Society Act.
In addition, and this is more important here, student societies at British Columbia universities do get their fees collected by the university under section 27 of the University Act. The power to do so -- and to collect fees for the Technical University -- is done by reference to the University Act and to the powers the board has under the University Act. This board will have the power to collect fees on behalf of a student society for students enrolled at the Technical University of British Columbia. Those provisions are in place, and they exactly parallel the provisions in place at our province's five existing universities.
What the member has received correspondence on, as have I, is the desire for students to see further amendments to the University Act, the Technical University of British Columbia Act and, I suspect, the Royal Roads University Act, as well, to incorporate some of the clauses that are now only in the College and Institute Act -- clauses on relations between student associations and their institutions.
That request came forward to my office far too late for inclusion in this piece of legislation. I have told the student associations of the province that I take their requests seriously and will be talking to them, to faculty, to university boards and to administrators at universities to see if we should move forward on legislation on that issue at a subsequent session.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments and for his commitment that, indeed, he will continue to look at that section. The issue was and continues to be the right of students to form an association. I know that all the rest of those issues will evolve, as with any new institution, and the minister is suggesting that that's in place. They will be happily reading this Hansard, because that is not what they believe to be the case today.
I have a couple of short questions regarding the appointment of chancellor and president. Will those two roles in this new institution differ at all from what they are currently in other existing institutions in B.C.?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The chancellor is the same as at other universities. The duties of the president in the Technical University do differ from those in other universities. The president's duties are specified in a subsequent section, and we'll be discussing them when we get there.
L. Reid: Section 4(d) is about eight persons to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Where will those names be drawn from? Are we looking at individuals who represent industry? Are we looking at individuals who have some vested interest in the future of the organization? Could the minister comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The pool will be a broad and deep one, of people in our province who are involved in cutting-edge industries and those in our communities who are interested in developing an institution that serves the needs of the applied technological fields. I think we will have a number of people. I hate to think how high the stack of résumés is going to be from people who are interested in participating in the establishment of this institution, because I think it's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for those on this board in the initial stages of establishing the Technical University of British Columbia.
[3:30]
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, because I now have some confidence that this board will reflect people who are on the leading edge in terms of knowledge-based industries. I think that is the vision for this institution, and if that's the minister's commitment, I certainly accept it.Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
L. Reid: This section reflects terms of office on the board. I appreciate that the term of office, as outlined here, is going to be two years. My concern is that I believe that's not standard. There are university appointments today that are three years. Could the minister clarify the difference?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will point out to the member that the two-year term of office applies only to members of the board of governors selected under section 4(c) -- that is, teaching staff members -- and 4(f) -- that is, an employee who is not a teaching staff member. Obviously a member of the board falling into one of those categories could subsequently run for re-election. These are internal employees of the institution.
For appointments under section 4(d) -- appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- those terms will be set by policy as it is now for boards of universities, colleges and institutes. For the information of the member, terms of appointment currently range from one to three years, with sort of a standard six-year maximum term as a member of the board. That, too, is a guideline rather than an absolute.
L. Reid: My next question: will there be a limit as to the number of terms someone can serve on the Technical University board? If the traditional university is two three-year terms for a maximum of six, are we talking two two-year terms to a maximum of four years?
Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff and I are unaware of any limitation on the number of consecutive terms that a board member selected by teaching staff or by students or by employees could serve on a board of a university. It's not specified in the University Act, nor is it specified in this legislation.
As for the maximum term for a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as I indicated earlier, by policy the general guideline is a maximum of six years, though I can think of instances where that has been extended.
[ Page 6417 ]
L. Reid: Given that this is now a 15-member board, from reading these sections, there doesn't appear to be a quorum established. It simply says that a vacancy on the board does not impair its authority. If this will remain a 15-member board, will there be reference made in the minister's remarks to reflect what the quorum might be?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A quorum is specified in section 7; we'll debate it when we get there.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
L. Reid: Would the minister would be so kind as to answer the question on quorum?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 7(2) specifies a majority of the members of the board holding office as constituting a quorum.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
L. Reid: Powers and duties of the board in terms of approving strategic plans, reporting out on research direction and policy
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I didn't want to let the general import of this section pass unnoticed by this chamber. This is the heart of some of the changes in governance that are incorporated in this university. The board, under this act, has the same powers and duties granted to and imposed -- you need both parts -- on the board and senate under the University Act. So this is indeed a departure from more traditional universities and how universities are governed.
The member asked whether a strategic program and research directions and policies would be available to the public. The answer is yes. The current board of the university and its president have already submitted to me a draft strategic plan on what programs and research directions and priorities it wishes to pursue. I expect the university to provide annual reports to me, to the public and to members it serves.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his commitment to provide that information. In that, as the minister outlined, this new institution will basically run without a senate, what is the appeal process? What is the mechanism in place for individuals who would find fault with the board for any particular reason? I would reference the most recent case at Simon Fraser University, where there were opportunities for the senate to become involved -- as the chamber of sober second thought, if you will. What kind of opportunities, what kind of mechanisms are in place for this new institution?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Policies and appeal processes will be established by the university itself, as they are at other universities. Depending on the issue, clearly the university could specify one or another of its governing bodies or agencies be charged with a particular issue, or a subset of that level of governance be charged with the issue. For example, it might well be that on areas of academic concern, the university council would be the body charged with overseeing issues concerned with academic credentials and fair marking and things like that, with an appeal process directed elsewhere.
There is, as in any large institution, enough flexibility here for the university itself to set up policies, processes and appeal processes. Clearly principles of natural justice and appeal are expected to be built into processes at universities.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
L. Reid: On section 9
Can the minister assure this House that, indeed, there is a grid in place for the payment of chancellor and the payment of president for this new institution?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a rigorous grid in place for chancellors in this province, hon. Chair; most of them operate for free. They receive no remuneration other than expenses for carrying out their duties. It is indeed a position of considerable honour and responsibility, and the ones that I know or have known over the years at universities have worked extremely hard to represent their institution well and to advance higher education.
I'll just digress briefly to mention the chancellor of the University of Northern British Columbia, Iona Campagnolo, who is completing her term as chancellor, who has served that institution remarkably well in its initial years and whose departure from that post I think will be missed. So chancellors
Presidents of this university, like others, receive remuneration in accordance with PSEC guidelines. So there are some general guidelines in place, and obviously, in setting salary levels, this institution and others will be looking broadly at sort of the industry standard across universities in North America.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
L. Reid: On section 10(2)(a), "to establish educational and research plans in accordance with the board's direction," my question is simply: how are those research plans going to be arrived at? My desire is to see industry being very significant players in that exercise. I would simply ask for the minister's assurance.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly priorities
[ Page 6418 ]
voice of the section of our economy that the university is designed to enhance and support will be well represented in formulation of research plans.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
L. Reid: Section 11 refers to "4 teaching staff members elected
Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 11(1)(c) refers specifically to senior administrators of the university. In the University Act, senior administrators are simply listed -- for example, all deans, plus the university librarian, plus some other positions. In this act, on the contrary, the number of senior administrators is relatively limited. Therefore the board has the ability to select those whose prime responsibility is providing administrative services in support of education or training.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
L. Reid: This minister referenced this section many times in terms of indicating that at this juncture he will indeed respond to my questions. So I trust that he will give a detailed, highly specific breakdown of why these committees are different, how they're structured, whether or not agencies in this province have the ability to submit names and how that selection process will be undertaken.
[3:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: This provision for program advisory committees does not appear in the University Act, nor does it appear in the College and Institute Act, though many college programs do have program advisory committees. The importance that this university will attach to the views of those who actually employ people or who are working in the fields for which this institution is training people is reflected in having program advisory committees established by legislation.The fact that the majority of the program advisory committees are representatives of business, labour, professional associations and other educational institutions relevant to the program area clearly indicates that it will be those external voices. Voices external to the institution, who employ graduates of the university or who represent professional associations that graduates will belong to, will be heard loudly and clearly in how the university first sets up programs. They have some clear responsibilities, as well, specified later in section 15 -- some quite clear responsibilities.
Second is the fact that it is representatives of program advisory committees, four of them, who sit on the university council. So we are building a governance structure for this university, as I said earlier, that differs significantly from other universities. This has created some consternation in the university community. I'm sure the member has received the same correspondence that I have on the matter. Let me say this, because it is a significant issue, and I want to have it on the record of Hansard: we have designed this governance structure with the advice of those who are involved in the work around the Technical University of British Columbia for this particular institution. We have sought to have a governance structure that reflects the purposes and goals of this university.
My view is that there are a variety of governance structures at post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, and they are appropriate for their institutions. Therefore what I wish to say, through Hansard and this chamber, to the university community concerned about this is that while I believe that this governance structure will work well for this institution, I have no intention of seeking to have other universities adopt this governance structure. They have different governance structures. I believe that has served those universities very well over time.
L. Reid: Section 13(1) says: "A program advisory committee exists for each program area." Does the minister have any indication of how many program areas will be reflected, say, in the first year to 18 months of operation? I appreciate that more will probably come on line as the institution evolves, but specifically, the question I raise to the minister is around committee selection once these committees are established.
Let's say there's going to be a committee around aerospace technology. Under subsection (2)(b) it says: "
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the member is yes, they will be.
The member also asked how many program advisory committees are expected. It is expected that there will be six program areas at the university. This is from the draft strategic plan that the university has submitted to me. It would include information technology, management, health and medical technology, food design and technology, industrial design and engineering, and applied arts.
L. Reid: Given the specificity of expectation that the minister referenced earlier in his comments from the list he just read -- and I'm assuming that he's meaning in the first year of operation -- that's not reflecting some of the very specific knowledge-based industry we have -- i.e., the aerospace industry -- which is doing some wondrous things in the lower mainland. Has no consideration been given to having an advisory committee that would reflect their level of expertise? It seems to me that they are one of the groups that -- I know for a fact -- have approached this government in terms of structuring some training programs around their area. Surely an advisory committee will follow.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I know that when the university was looking at these program areas, they anticipated that the aerospace industry would be falling under the industrial design and engineering section of this. Most of the training needs that I've had expressed to me by that industry would fit well under that general rubric.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
[ Page 6419 ]
On section 15.
L. Reid: Simply a general reference from the minister if he might, because he said: "When I reach this section, I'll give you all the details." Since we are now at that section, if he could expound on what is currently listed
Hon. P. Ramsey: Again I want to reference how unique this provision is in legislation governing post-secondary institutions. It's unique both in specifying that program advisory committees should exist and also in specifying what we expect them to do. Given its membership, I anticipate that when it considers courses of study and course content and when it considers research initiatives, projects and plans, those will reflect the concerns of the members of that committee, which, as I've already discussed, will reflect both those with expertise within the institution -- staff and students -- and more importantly, those from outside the institution, who have a broad majority on the program advisory committee. That's important for looking at what is included in those courses of study and curriculum and in the design of programs.
Similarly, I would expect that because it is this sort of body that has responsibility for cooperative education opportunities for students, that sort of opportunity to blend study and real job experience will be enhanced for students at the Technical University of British Columbia.
Finally, touching on a matter that the member and I have indeed shared a lot of common interest in, I would call her attention to 15(2), which requires annual reports of the program advisory committee to the board on its activities -- what it's done, what issues it has addressed -- so that there is accountability to the board from the advisory committees that it has struck.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his clarification. To me, this section is absolutely critical to the success of the organization. We hope and trust that this organization will be responsive -- that it indeed will be able to turn on a dime when it sees a new need in the community or on the worksite that is currently not addressed by any of the other institutions we have in the province. That variability is what this opposition is standing in support of today. This has been presented as an organization that's much more responsive, much more flexible and more ready, if you will, to take on challenges that we've not realized yet -- that this agency will have the kind of relevance and responsiveness to meet the new eventualities that present themselves over the next decade and well into the next millennium.
To me, the selection of who sits on those advisory committees is absolutely critical to the success of that organization. If those people are not the leading-edge thinkers around knowledge-based industry, whether it's aerospace technology or new health instrumentation, this institution will flounder. Given the small number of FTEs, I think that captures much greater flexibility; it allows for much more responsiveness. We are indeed attempting to manage the lives of 2,800 students, whether it be for a six-week period, a six-month period or perhaps a two-year program. That is a much more doable exercise, if you will, than other institutions currently have at their disposal.
I'm expecting wondrous things to happen as a result of a smaller number, a greater sense of community and hopefully some absolutely leading-edge thinkers being involved in how best to deliver that kind of training so that it's relevant for employers in this province -- for small business, for people who might actually wish to make an economic contribution to this province -- and that they've got the building blocks. In this instance, the building blocks are the students.
So I commend the minister on what I believe is his sensitivity around the selection process. The individuals that are chosen will be critical to the future of this organization, and I wish this minister well with his deliberations.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just very quickly, a point of detail here: it's the board that's going to be selecting members of the program advisory committee. I want to make sure that that is clear for the record. In the general terms that member expressed support for this act, I want to thank her, because I think she's right. We have an opportunity here to expand the way we do training in the higher level of education in our province, and I think we should carry through on it -- in spite of what I heard in the press over the weekend and in the media today about concerns about this institution. I think it will serve the needs of our province well.
L. Reid: If I might make one final comment. I'm personally delighted that this minister is responsible for the K-to-12 system and the post-secondary system, because the points I raised earlier around outreach are valid, I think. Certainly under this section -- funding opportunities for research and student scholarships -- my expectation for this institution is that they will reach out dramatically to students who are 15, 16, 17 years of age so that they will make some appropriate choices in their K-to-12 learning environments so that indeed they're eligible to participate in programs such as this. I trust that this minister will continue to reflect my concerns, as well.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I need to make one comment, again for the record. As a result of controversy around this act, there has been concern about whether this act will have academic freedom. I want to state very clearly that we have included section 48 of the University Act quite deliberately. That act prohibits the minister from interfering in the establishment of academic policies and standards, standards for admission and graduation, and the appointment of staff. That, I think, is a very secure bulwark against intrusion into academic freedom at this university.
Sections 16 to 28 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their participation in this debate. I move that the committee rise and report Bill 30 complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 30, Technical University of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[4:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 45.[ Page 6420 ]
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
The House in committee on Bill 45; J. Doyle in the chair.Hon. P. Ramsey: Just before we begin debate this afternoon, I want to introduce, on my right, Joan Axford, director of school finance and data management in the ministry. On my left is Peter Owen, director of governance and legislation. We're here to debate a very significant piece of legislation: the provisions of ensuring that francophones in British Columbia have responsibility for governance of education for their children.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
A. Sanders: As the minister has pointed out today, what we're debating in Bill 45, the School Amendment Act, 1997, is a bill designed to provide the francophone community of British Columbia with management and control of francophone education as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. In section 23, the education in French language must also reflect francophone culture for the francophone community living in British Columbia.
What happens in section 9 as written is that parents who have children in both systems -- children in the francophone system as well as the anglophone system -- are unable to vote for school board trustee members. What we have in that situation is parents who may wish to have their children in both a French and an English system. This often occurs in areas where the children are in primary French programs in K-to-7, but the district does not provide, for example, a high school education in French. At that time, the children are moved to an English high school. As the anglophone school districts still have a say in how much funding goes to many of the French programs, the francophone community feels that it would be only fair if they also concomitantly had a say in the anglophone system.
I submitted, beforehand, an amendment to section 9 under my name, and this amendment would allow people who are members of the Francophone Education Authority and live outside francophone school districts to still be able to vote for a school board in the area where they live. Members of the Francophone Education Authority are any person who can be defined under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that is, if their first language is French, if they have a child being educated primarily in French or if they have ever been schooled in French.
I believe the Chair has my suggested amendment for section 9:
[SECTION 9,To add the part highlighted by underline:
2.1 In addition to the persons referred to in subsection (2), a person who has filed a declaration under s. 166.14 (5) is disqualified from voting at a trustee election unless that person is not resident in a francophone school district, and is a member of the Conseil scolaire Francophone de la Colombie Britannique pursuant to s. 166.13 (1) (b), or unless that person has a child enrolled with a school board.]On the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I did have a couple of things that I wanted to say on the amendment, because it is a significant point. I thank the member for bringing her amendment forward here. Before I get there, though, I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is very appropriate that joining us in the gallery today are Nicole Hennessey, president of the Francophone Education Authority of British Columbia, and Nick Ardanaz, CEO of the authority. Would the House please join me in welcoming them on this very significant day for francophone education in our province.
Regrettably, I will not be supporting this amendment for the following reason. The amendment would permit, as I think the member recognizes, dual voting by persons who live outside the francophone school district or by persons who have children enrolled with the school district. It seems illogical to me to have a person who lives within a francophone school district have one vote while other persons have two. The way the act is drafted, it requires a clear declaration of whether a parent with a child enrolled in a school run by the Francophone Education Authority wishes to vote for the directors of the authority or wishes to vote in school district elections.
This is an appropriate restriction. I recognize that it has caused some concern within the francophone community. This is a provision that is included in legislation in Ontario and New Brunswick that similarly requires voters to choose.
This side will not be supporting this amendment.
Amendment negatived on division.
Sections 9 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, we are now on definitions and interpretations, 166.1. Under part 8.1, "Francophone Education Authorities," and under interpretation and definitions, I had a couple of points to make.
In British Columbia we haven't done very well by the francophone community in terms of making legislation that has been quickly and expediently there to satisfy the needs of our own Charter. For those who have an interest in this area, it has been a long time coming for us to get the legislation right, and we have been to court a number of times.
On section 166.11, again we are looking at a judgment by Justice Vickers, according to section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that judgment there were a number of pronouncements with respect to potential legislation and how this would best fit into a future bill in British Columbia that would provide for the rights of the francophone community. To make sure that we have fair and equitable treatment of the Francophone Education Authority, I have suggested an amendment to section 166.11, which is the interpretation. This is available on the order paper under my name.
[SECTION 21Section 166.11
Section 166.11 is amended by the addition of the following subsection immediately before subsection (1):
166.11 (1) Where, in this Part, a provision of this Act is made to apply for the purposes of this Part, the provisions of this Part are to be interpreted wherever possible to ensure that:Hon. P. Ramsey: May I suggest to the Chair that we vote on 166.1 and then deal with the member's amendment to 166.11?(a) The quality of education provided by a francophone education authority is on a basis of equality with that offered by school boards within its francophone school district boundaries:
(b) The educational services of a francophone education authority are promoted and accessible in order to realize to the fullest extent their use by eligible persons:
[ Page 6421 ]
(c) The provision of adequate additional funding, capital assets and personnel is made to a francophone education authority to achieve equivalence with school boards notwithstanding their historic head start in British Columbia.
(d) The fullest measure of management and control is given to francophone education authority in relation to francophone educational services and facilities appertain to, or are seen to be, of the francophone linguistic minority.
(e) The francophone schools operated by a francophone education authority become community centres for the preservation and promotion of francophone language and culture: and:
(f) The francophone language and culture flourishes as much as possible in British Columbia.]
Section 21, section 166.1 approved.
On the amendment to section 21, section 166.11.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to say that I share some of the member's concerns that this province does not have a proud record of supplying francophone education to those who qualify for such education under the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our country.
To attend to that lack of adequate governance, the previous administration of this government brought forward the Francophone Education Authority to achieve those goals and to put in place a governance structure for francophone education. As the member says, that authority and its establishment by regulation were further challenged in the courts, and Justice Vickers said very clearly that the governance structure should be contained in legislation. That is why we are debating the provisions of that legislation here today.
Let me say this. I have little quarrel with the general principles that the member's amendment proposes. Clearly, we wish to see that educational services for francophones are promoted and accessible in this province. We wish to see the quality of education for francophones be on a par with that offered by school boards. We wish to see management and control of francophone education in the hands of parents of children enrolled in francophone schools.
Having said that, however, I do believe that this provision is legally unnecessary. It is our clear presumption and expectation that the legislation will be applied and interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Charter and with the constitution of our country. We're trying very hard to meet our Charter obligations. I recognize the member's purpose in doing this, but several of the clauses in there go beyond some of the Charter provisions and create a possible second standard on which litigation around rights to francophone education and the rights of the Francophone Education Authority of B.C. could possibly be based. The amendment also has the potential for intruding on responsibilities given to the authority itself.
[4:15]
Finally, hon. Chair, and this is the point I wish you to attend to, my understanding of the rules of this House is that amendments that require expenditure by government are out of order. This amendment clearly does increase cost to government in many potential ways, and therefore I would ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.The Chair: I rule that the amendment is clearly out of order and goes beyond the scope of this section.
Section 21, section 166.11 approved.
On section 21, section 166.12.
The Chair: The member has two amendments.
A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, 166.12 is the actual establishment of the FEA. There are amendments I have put forward under my name. These would provide the Francophone Education Authority with a provincewide school district, or parents would be able to initiate action to start a new one or at least extend the existing authority to regions where it is needed. By doing this, they would be able to cover their people across the province in places like Kelowna and Prince George rather than just in the current areas of the lower mainland and the southern part of Vancouver Island. These places do have significant francophone populations, and it is a matter of trying to ensure that these areas are covered, as well.
I have submitted on the order paper two amendments to section 166.12 that deal specifically with this issue.
[SECTION 166.12 is amended by repealing section 166.12 (1) and replacing it with:
166.12 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation:(a) establish a francophone education authority having jurisdiction over the provision of francophone education to eligible children in British Columbia.]
[SECTION 166.12 is amended by adding the following subsection (7.1):
166.12 (7.1) An eligible person supported by a petition signed by 50 or more eligible persons residing outside the current francophone school district, may apply in writing to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for an extension of the boundaries of the area prescribed by subsection 1 (c) and such application shall not be unreasonably denied.]On the amendments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, with your advice, I would suggest we deal with the member's amendments one at a time.
The first of these amendments is an amendment to section 166.12(1). As the member says, it aims to establish a francophone education authority having jurisdiction over the provision of francophone education to the entire province. In other words, it establishes the geographic mandate of the authority to be provincewide. As the member knows, the current authority covers 18 school districts in the southwestern part of the province and lower Vancouver Island. This would be a significant expansion of the geographical territory covered by the authority.
Let me say this. The test for provision of a governance authority in the Charter is clear governance control where numbers warrant. Currently francophone education is provided in those 18 school districts through the authority, and in other school districts through provisions made by local school districts. I have said to the authority -- and I'll say it for the record here in this House -- that as numbers warrant elsewhere in the province, this government and this ministry will be interested in discussing with the authority the expansion of the territory covered by the authority or the establishment of additional authorities. Those are the provisions contained in section 166.12 as drafted. I'm not prepared to accept the member's amendment, because it requires a jump forward
[ Page 6422 ]
that I think would be unwise. Further, hon. Chair, I wish to advise you that by doing this sort of expansion at this time, this amendment would clearly require increased expenditures by the Crown, and therefore it must be ruled out of order.
A. Sanders: Speaking to the amendment, I feel at this point that it should not be ruled out of order. We trust the minister to expand the authority when the time comes and numbers are necessary. I think if that is the case, why would we not put it in legislation so that it would not have to be
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I know you're going to be ruling, but just let me address the detail of this quickly. We have included subsection (7) in this section. It specifically allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to alter the boundaries, change the name, abolish as well as add. So there are provisions for changing boundaries under subsection (7). Under subsection (1), of course, it provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the ability to establish a francophone education authority. Though it may be written in the singular, clearly it legally entitles the establishment of more than one education authority. So I wish to provide some comfort to the member by saying that I believe the provisions she is seeking under the amendment, which has been put forward, are there in the legislation as drafted. Regrettably also, I must again repeat that as her amendment is drafted, it would require additional expenditure by the Crown immediately.
The Chair: Based on that, I would rule the amendment out of order due to expenditure. On the second amendment.
A. Sanders: The intent of amendments 166.12(1) and 166.12(7.1) is basically the same.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I hate to almost argue the reverse way, hon. member. The proposed amendment to 166.12(7.1) does not require additional expenditure, in the view of staff. However, I do think it is an unwise amendment, because it sets a standard for when a boundary shall be altered. I think it could result in litigation either by the school districts or by the authority over whether this is a reasonable level or not. Again, let me say that the Charter sets a clear standard that where numbers warrant, the governance of francophone education shall be in the hands of the authority set by legislation to do that governance. So I do not think that (7.1) is out of order, but I do believe it is unwise, and this side of the House will not be supporting it.
The Chair: Member, if you could take your seat. Due to the wording in subsection (1)(c), "and such application shall not be unreasonably denied," it's my view that that puts a burden or an obligation on the Crown, and therefore it's out of order.
A. Sanders: Could you please explain that to me, again, hon. Chair? I didn't follow that.
The Chair: Subsection (7) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do certain things. But this amendment would put an obligation on the Crown because of the words: "shall not be unreasonably denied." So there is an obligation. Okay?
Section 21, section l66.12 approved.
On section 21, section 166.13.
A. Sanders: Under 166.13, the concern is the potential for draft legislation to deprive francophones outside the Conseil scolaire territory of their right to become members of the authority. The amendment that I put forward under my name allows people who live outside the Francophone Education Authority to become members, essentially allowing equal access. In the current bill any person that does not live in the FEA would not be permitted to be a member. This includes areas such as Kelowna and Prince George, where, again, a significant membership in the francophone education community reside. I know that the minister will tell us to trust his judgment. But if this were part of the legislation, there would be no need for putting his personal judgment on the line, and it would be in the legislation for all of us to view. My comments -- specifically with 166.13 -- are the reason and the rationale for putting forward the amendment on the order paper under my name.
[SECTION 166.13 (1) is amended by adding the following subsections as follows:
166.13 (1)On the amendment.(1.1) Any eligible person, and any immigrant parent, who is not resident in a francophone school district may apply to become a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique by providing to it an affirmation in the prescribed form.
(1.2) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council establishes a francophone education authority which has jurisdiction over a francophone school district where a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique referred to in subsection (b) resides, that person shall no longer be a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and may apply to the newly created francophone education authority for membership.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to advise the member that we really have, I think, a bit of confusion that may have led to the putting forward of this amendment. First, there are two areas where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes. One is: what's the territorial jurisdiction of the Francophone Education Authority within which it can offer programs? That is currently set at the 18 school districts in the southwest corner of the province and Vancouver Island. As I said to this chamber, that will be the initial territory designated by OIC for the Francophone Education Authority once this act is an act.
The second area that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can prescribe, however, is the territory for membership purposes. I think this is what the member is getting at with this amendment. The OIC in place right now that designates the territory for membership purposes is the entire province. There is no intent of changing that provision when that OIC is resubmitted and reconfirmed when this legislation is in place. So we will not be supporting this amendment, because the provisions are already there to carry out the intent the member is seeking under this amendment.
A. Sanders: For the record, does the minister then infer from that statement that, as the situation is presently, there is in fact the ability for those who are outside of the area to become members of the authority?
[ Page 6423 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not only does it confer that right, there are members of the authority who have exercised it.
A. Sanders: Could the minister explain to me again, under the way the legislation is written in this section without the amendment, how that would be guaranteed?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We're debating section 166.13(1). Let me read it and then refer to the regulation that it anticipates. It says: "Any eligible person
[4:30]
So the authority that the member is seeking by her amendment is in place. The confusion is that there's also a separate regulation, hon. member, that designates in what territory or area of the province the Francophone Education Authority will have responsibility for delivering francophone education. That is currently limited to the 18 school districts, as we've already discussed: the southwest corner of the province and lower Vancouver Island.A. Sanders: If that is read into the official record by the minister, then he will stand by it.
Amendment negatived.
Section 21, sections 166.13 to 166.27 inclusive approved.
On section 21, section 166.28.
A. Sanders: Section 166.28 relates to francophone school personnel. In this area, I have proposed several amendments. The purpose of the amendments are as follows. They are to allow the Francophone Education Authority to hire teachers from outside of the board if it is unable to fill the positions from within the board. In addition, they are to
On the order paper under my name is an amendment to section 166.28, with the purpose of allowing francophone schools to be filled from within or without the board:
[SECTION 166.28 (2) is amended by deleting the word in strikeout and to substitute therefor the word highlighted by underline:
166.28 A francophone education authority must may, for the first school year in which it intends to employ persons as francophone teachers to provide a francophone educational program to francophone students, attempt, on terms and conditions the board of directors considers appropriate, to fill any available teaching positions with individuals who]On the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand what the member is seeking to do, I believe. Look, the "must" is included in this clause, rather than the "may" that the member is proposing, as a matter of fairness -- fairness to teachers that are now providing francophone education. As we stand right now, the Francophone Education Authority is acquiring teaching personnel by contract with school boards. Once this act is approved, they will become the employer of personnel. The "must" provision for the first school year -- and I point out to the member that it's only for the first school year -- provides a period of transition which I think will help ensure some stability in the system, as well as provide fairness to teachers that are now employed in teaching francophone education.
So with respect, I will not be supporting this amendment. I think it is important that we are fair to the teachers who have worked hard to provide francophone education to students of the province, and who have written to me -- and perhaps to the member opposite -- expressing some concern about how their lives are affected by enactment of the legislation which we are now debating.
Amendment negatived.
Section 21, section 166.28 approved.
On section 21, section 166.29.
A. Sanders: Section 166.29, school property, deals with the acquisition and disposal of lands and improvements. Under the Francophone Education Authority, the amendment I have written in my name on the order paper provides the right and power to expropriate. There is no reason why the FEA is not given the same expropriation process that is permitted for other school boards. Justice Vickers backs this up on page 32 of his unreported decision. That is, of course, available to the minister, and I'm sure he has read it.
We are in a situation where, because of past decisions made in the legal framework for francophone education, a number of these particular issues and questions have been debated previously, as the minister has mentioned. In one of the proceedings, Mahe v. Alberta in 1990
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say again to the member opposite that as far as the goals we are seeking through this legislation, I think we share many common goals for this authority and for the provision of francophone education in this province. Clearly one of the things that the authority -- the Francophone Education Authority -- will require are facilities in which to offer that education. And the acquisition of those facilities is clearly one of the principal concerns of the parents of francophone students and of the authority.
Having said that, what the member is doing with these amendments is seeking, first, to transfer title by legislation from one school district or another to the Francophone Education Authority, or add an expropriation power -- if I understand the first of her amendments -- or, in the third case, with section 166.29(4), to provide compulsory arbitration to resolve issues around property and property transfer. With your permission, hon. Chair, I propose that we consider all of these as a package, because I think they address the same issue in a variety of ways.
I said earlier that I do not disagree with the intent or the goal here; I do disagree with the mechanisms that are pro-
[ Page 6424 ]
posed. We are just now working with the Francophone Education Authority on their capital needs, and we expect the Francophone Education Authority to be developing its capital plan over the next while. It is appropriate that they do that before we seek the transfer of specific properties, or other properties that may not now be used, to the possession of the authority.
I intend to transfer and have property transferred to the Francophone Education Authority. That will happen under this legislation. That needs to be said. I want it on the record that it has been said -- for anybody who is watching these proceedings, for the members of the authority and for the children who are now studying in francophone schools. It is important that the Francophone Education Authority have and own the property in which they are delivering education for their children.
However, this is a very complex issue which is more appropriately negotiated rather than governed by expropriation or arbitration. I have committed to the authority that the ministry, and if necessary my office, will intervene to ensure that discussions and negotiations with school boards over the transfer of property reach satisfactory conclusions. I think it is best left at that level. I believe that we can find a mutually satisfactory resolution of issues by intense negotiations, if necessary with the help of myself and/or the ministry. I pledge to continue to assist the authority in resolving any differences.
So I believe that these proposed amendments are at this time not wise, and this side of the House will not be supporting them. However, if it is clear, after a year of experience with the authority, that we are not reaching satisfactory resolutions to these issues of transfer, I am prepared to consider such amendments at a subsequent sitting of this Legislature.
A. Sanders: I think there are some important things to look at with respect to these amendments. We're looking at a community of Canadians who have been guaranteed rights since 1982 under section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We in British Columbia haven't done a particularly good job of activating those rights that are most definitely over a decade old and getting older as we speak.
In 1996 -- I believe it was August of '96 -- Justice Vickers's judgment was made public. Justice Vickers was the Supreme Court justice who said that
Now, what is appropriate and important for the critic in this role is to make sure that when it's all said and done, we've done what we've done and we've done it properly. The amendments that I have brought forward and asked this government to adopt as necessary before the legislation is passed as a final product are not creations of my own; they are creations of the legal counsel who have been working diligently for a very extended, if not protracted, period of time on behalf of the FEA community. Whether or not we feel that the amendments are appropriate, they are within the paradigm structure that has been given to us by Justice Vickers's declaration.
What I think is appropriate and important is to not leave the judgments on the perchance or the character of the minister. You know, ministers are grist for the mill, and they come and go quickly in this province. It is the circumstance that although we may have full expectations from this minister that he will fulfil his roles and duties as outlined in this House -- and certainly as vocalized by himself -- he's here today and we don't know if he will be here tomorrow. It is the circumstance that if we're going to do the job, why don't we do it properly? Why don't we do it within the regulations that have been set out in the amendments which would satisfy most of the circumstances that are outlined in Justice Vickers's decision, and just get on with it?
Many of the things we're talking about in the amendments are things that in fact exist for other areas and have already been the subject of court cases in the past. Goodness knows, we've had 17 years in Canada for these kinds of things to occur -- since the inception of section 23.
I don't think it's good enough for us to sort of have the minister say: "Trust me. I'll make sure that everyone carries it out, and if the francophone community has a problem, they can phone my office, and I'll make sure staff are put right on it." I think they need something definite, and I think we need to keep this government -- for a while, anyway -- out of court. I think we spend too much time there as a government in British Columbia, and I would really like to see the provisions of the not-even-cold case of August 1996 said and done. And therefore we would certainly pass the amendments I've put forward.
[4:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with part of what the member says, and that is that we need to do the job properly. And I think that involves work by the Francophone Education Authority to put together a capital plan that recognizes that in some instances, francophone education will be delivered through stand-alone facilities that they, indeed, will have title to. In other cases, it will be delivered through facilities that are shared with school districts or with other groups. So I think it is imperative that we do that work before we leap forward to transfer specific properties by legislation.The member says that the amendments she has proposed fit within the bounds of constitutional responsibility and Justice Vickers's instructions. I think legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General will be somewhat different. We believe that the act we have tabled in this Legislature meets our responsibilities under the Charter and under Justice Vickers's ruling, or we would not have tabled it.
I recognize that any legislation is potentially subject to further legal challenges. I hope that this will not be, that we will move forward in making sure the Francophone Education Authority has both the operating resources and the capital facilities to provide francophone education for eligible children in British Columbia. Again, I recognize the member's commitment to this goal, but I do not believe these amendments should be supported.
A. Sanders: Again, with the minister's comments about the advice from one group or another
But when I look at the francophone school governance background and look at the number of times the Attorney General has given advice to the Ministry of Education con-
[ Page 6425 ]
cerning francophone schools
But in fact we're here seven years later, and we're still talking about the same old thing. So again, the advice that
I think the importance here is really to look at the amendments and ask: do they work within the confines of the ministry, within the Charter, within the Justice Vickers decision? Do they provide what's going to come to the FEA anyway? And if they do, then get on with it and accept them and support them so that we don't have to be back at the drawing board this time next year with a court decision from August 1997 that says: "According to what you did in the House in 1997, you have to come back in one year's time and make sure that you've put in the amendments that were suggested in the first place, because your legislation does not settle and satisfy the requirements of the court case on which it was built."
The third amendment in this section, which I haven't spoken to specifically, is to give the Francophone Education Authority the right for their schools to be stand-alone schools -- and I bring this up because the minister has mentioned it himself. This has already been done in Newfoundland, and in other places, as well, I believe -- I think Manitoba. Currently, the schools are the property of the Ministry of Education or of the school district, and there is no clear understanding in that situation. This amendment that I brought forward would absolve the FEA from any difficult negotiations with school districts that may not grant the funding or the schools with as much grace as has been promised by the minister. Not only does Justice Vickers support this amendment, on page 33 and 34 of his report, but it is a circumstance that as school boards get tighter and tighter in their funding, they are most definitely going to see what can go, and the places that they'll tend to squeeze are the places last on board, the cabooses of the education system. In 1997, the FEA in some districts will definitely be one of the cabooses. So this, again, is to keep us in a circumstance where we do not have to be back in this House in a year's time doing exactly the same thing we're doing today: the minister and I debating amendments to the School Act that will satisfy section 23 of the Charter.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope we're not back here next year debating this, because I hope that planning will be done by the Francophone Education Authority and that we have assets transferred.
I want to pick up on the member's last statement, though, because, regrettably, I think it does apply to these clauses. While the authority to expropriate in and of itself does not require funds to be provided by this ministry, if it were actually acted upon and expropriation took place, it would be a cost on the Crown. Similarly, the transfer of schools from one authority to another would be a cost on the Crown, since those properties are not properties of government, but properties of a school district that would expect compensation for them. Finally, the same is clearly true of the arbitration. In and of itself, the cost of an arbitration board is a minor cost item. However, if it actually acted on something and assets were transferred, again, it is a potential cost obligation on the Crown.
So I ask for them to be dealt with as a whole here for a couple of reasons. First, I hoped we could agree on the goals we have here, on the importance of having a plan in place for acquisition of capital assets by the Francophone Education Authority and a clear commitment that we're going to move forward in doing that in the coming year. We have provisions in this section that I believe will fit the constitutional mandate and will enable the authority to get on with delivering education in facilities that it controls. But I must advise the chamber that I see no way that we can deal with these without also imposing cost on the Crown.
The Chair: The Chair rules that all three amendments on section 166.29 are out of order due to financial obligations on the Crown.
Section 21, sections 166.29 to 166.46 inclusive approved.
Sections 22 to 66 inclusive approved.
On section 67.
A. Sanders: Section 67 is the Public Education Labour Relations Act. Section 66 and the two that follow are, in some ways, because they relate to labour and staff -- staff meaning francophone teachers
The labour legislation in British Columbia requires the FEA to negotiate collective agreements jointly with the school board, and that does in fact breach the right previously set by Supreme Court decision. In the Supreme Court decision, the education rights of francophones were guaranteed by the Charter, and they were in fact upheld in the 1990 decision.
The FEA states that it may have needs that must be filled on an individual basis with various teachers, but they're also using an individual not only as a teacher but as a cultural medium. They require teachers to stay for an extra hour for cultural purposes, and often require them to be a community liaison for the FEA, as well. Full powers are therefore needed to negotiate these points with the individual teacher.
In the labour legislation of British Columbia, these rights -- not only of providing language instruction but providing cultural and community liaison -- will often be infringed by the present rights of teachers hired under the B.C. Teachers Federation agreement with government. Because of the extra duties of the francophone teachers, they are not just primarily being teachers in the classroom but have, as part of the cultural context of what the teacher does, a number of other very significant activities.
When we measure our success at implementing our Charter and our success at looking at language, not just language acquisition but continuing the first language spoken by
[ Page 6426 ]
children, we also have to look at the cultural weave. This is where this varies quite significantly from the current situation with teachers in British Columbia.
For section 67, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 67, delete section 67 and substitute with the following:
Public Education Labour Relations ActOn the amendment.67 Section 1 of the Public Education Labour Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.382, is amended
(a) in the definition of "school board" by adding "but does not include a francophone education authority as defined in that Act" after "School Act"]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe we actually have a proposal for three amendments for sections 67, 68 and 69 -- all having the same effect, I think. Actually, they'd either have to be done as a package
[5:00]
Let me just say this: these proposals are clearly inconsistent -- and the member has already said that -- with the provincial bargaining framework that this government has established. I want to make it clear, however, that the Francophone Education Authority, like any school board, will be the sole employer of the teachers it hires to deliver francophone education to eligible students. In that, it will not be unlike other school boards.The legislation as written here requires the authority to conduct bargaining with its teachers under the frameworks established in the province. I want to distinguish those two roles: the sort of employer relationship and the bargaining relationship. I don't want, in any way, to let the record show that this legislation is seeking to undermine the ability of the Francophone Education Authority to hire and supervise its teaching staff.
The provisions here included in the act, under sections 67, 68 and 69, do, however, require the Francophone Education Authority to be part of the overall bargaining regime for school teachers in our province. Currently, the British Columbia Public Schools Employers Association and the BCTF are negotiating a memo of understanding covering francophone authorities employed by the FEA. The bargaining authorities are indeed dealing with the issues that the FEA has brought before the employer association.
This side is not going to support the dismantling of the provincial bargaining regime for public school educators, either in the general public education system or in the francophone education system. I thank the member for her amendments, but I need to inform her that we will not be supporting these amendments when they're brought to a vote.
A. Sanders: You know, I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I think that by the end of this session, I may find myself feeling more in that role. My understanding of the rule of interpretation of special legislation is that it should take precedence over earlier general legislation. In the understanding of the legislation we write as government, I think it's great that the BCTF is working out something for the francophone teachers within their context, but I think we need to provide -- because we've been given that from a clearer and higher authority -- the rights under section 23. What the amendments I propose for sections 67, 68 and 69 do, in fact, is give the right for section 23 to be implemented in British Columbia regardless of what our general laws are here.
We may be British Columbians, but more significantly, we are Canadians. The decision of the Supreme Court will overrule the decision of the B.C. Teachers Federation in terms of how we accommodate the teachers who teach at francophone schools. For those of us who understand and participate in the francophone education system, it is not easy to fill those positions all the time, and it can be exceedingly difficult in those areas that have a greater turnover of staff. Not all teachers can teach in the Francophone Education Authority; there is no question about that. The minister is very well aware of that situation.
In British Columbia we have some guidelines in terms of labour negotiations that do not, according to the 1990 case of Mahe v. Alberta, provide the right for recruitment and assignment of teachers, as discussed in that legislation, here in B.C. The labour legislation in B.C. will require the FEA to negotiate collective agreements jointly with the school boards, under the act that we put in place.
We haven't finished our work, hon. Chair. We're in a situation where we're going to have to revisit this, because it will be challenged. Again, the sense of doing that is, to me, what the most important point is, regardless of the opinion of myself or the minister: it's the sense of whether we will be back here, whether we will have fulfilled our rights under section 23, and whether we will have to revisit and have more amendments forced on us in order to comply with Supreme Court decisions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for her comments. I recognize that there are those who are involved in francophone education who wish a separate bargaining regime for their employees, their professional staff and their teachers. I recognize and understand that. Had this debate been taking place five years ago, we would simply be debating an act that provided the Francophone Education Authority with a bargaining structure in place for their school boards. That would have been 100 percent local bargaining.
The act that we are debating today provides for the Francophone Education Authority the same bargaining structure as every other school board. I think it meets the test for providing the powers equitably for this authority, congruent with other school boards. I'm convinced that the bargaining that is taking place now will recognize the needs of the Francophone Education Authority, because they are represented in the BCPSEA structure. Their voice is being heard. The needs of the authority and their teaching staff will be recognized at the bargaining table, and I think we should keep the provincial bargaining regime that we have established in this province.
So again, I thank the member for her advocacy for these amendments, and I need to say clearly that this side of the House will not be supporting them.
A. Sanders: Just for the record, the amendments have certainly been looked over by the commissioner of official languages in Ottawa, and the amendments are in compliance with their suggestions. So I think it's appropriate and important for it to be recorded that these amendments do not come from personal opinion or bias, but more so from those who
[ Page 6427 ]
have reviewed the case on which the amendments have had to be brought forward. Therefore I certainly do stand in favour of them.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 67 approved.
The Chair: The amendment on 68 is ruled out of order. This is a direct negative.
Sections 68 to 77 inclusive approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just before we move to vote on the title and therefore the final section of this significant piece of legislation, I want first to thank the critic for her involvement and interest in this issue. It is not an easy issue and, as the member said, we are both going to get our basic legal education in Charter rights by dealing with the provisions of this act.
Let me say also that while the debate in the chamber this afternoon has focused on a number of sections on which this House has some division on how best to move forward with education, we have not debated the great bulk of this bill, and we have not done so because I think both sides of the House are in agreement on how we move forward with those many, many provisions to empower the Francophone Education Authority to deliver francophone education for eligible children in this province.
This is an act that I believe will go to the heart of what the member says -- and that is the record of this province in providing francophone education, which has not been a very good one -- and I think it will enable us to move forward to a better future for francophone education in British Columbia.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 45, School Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 38.
BUILDERS LIEN ACT
The House in committee on Bill 38; R. Kasper in the chair.On section 1.
G. Plant: I'm rising here to make one general comment, and I should indicate that I had the benefit of a very helpful briefing from a number of members of the minister's staff. During the course of that briefing, we discussed one aspect of the question of builders liens, something that did not make its way into the bill, because I think it was a suggestion that came along perhaps after the consultation process had done its work. The suggestion was that there be implemented an owner's trust obligation similar to the obligations which the act imposes on a contractor and a subcontractor.
Now, I understand from the minister's staff that the government has at least agreed to consider this as an issue that it will look at. It might be something that would come forward some day if it were the subject of an extensive consultation and all of that. Really, I want to do nothing more here than to commend the idea to the minister for his continuing consideration, and I hope that the proposal will not be forgotten as all of us watch this bill -- this important piece of reform -- do its work over time. Perhaps I could have the minister's comments in response to that.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate that my critic has had an opportunity for a briefing and that in substance there is agreement on the bill. This issue of the owner's trust, according to my officials, does have some merit. As we go through the bill, we'll find that there may be questions around certain parts of the bill. I would ask that as we consider it, we bear in mind that this bill is the product of extensive consultation. All too often it's easy, when it gets to the final stage, to say: "Just a minute, we've got a better idea." If we look at the bill in that light, it may be that over time it will be subject to some analysis and perhaps some change. The bill we see today is the product of a considerable amount of debate.
Yes, the issue of the owner's trust is something that does have merit. It does present some complications with respect to financial institutions and the sector. I'm quite prepared to ask my staff to consider that in their discussions with the sector, in terms of how the bill might operate.
[5:15]
R. Neufeld: I have a brief question for the minister. He may be able to help me. It may be addressed later on in the bill that I'm not aware of. I go to, under definitions, "improvement": "The minister may be able to address my concern. It has to do with pipelines. Where pipelines are constructed across private land, the private land owner, as I understand it, has absolutely no right to refuse a pipeline right-of-way across his or her land.
On occasion I've had it in my constituency, where most of the pipelines in British Columbia are, that a person who was in the process of selling their land had a pipeline across it. The pipeline had been built, some subcontractors hadn't been paid, and there was a lien put against the pipeline. In effect, there was a lien put against the land. As I read "improvement" and the description of it, that's exactly what happened. The sale was null and void. The owner of the land, with absolutely no control of a pipeline being constructed across their land, all of a sudden lost the sale of their property that they had been negotiating for quite a while.
This is not a common occurrence, but it has occurred in other areas, specifically with municipalities, and with one other landowner in my constituency of Peace River North, where there are actually hundreds and hundreds of small and large pipelines being built. That's my concern.
I don't have any problem with the intent of the act -- none whatsoever. In fact, I think it's a good act. But I do have a problem with how we address pipelines that go across private property when the private property owner has no authority to say no. It's the same as drilling a well on private property. The private property owner has absolutely no authority to say,
[ Page 6428 ]
"No, I don't want it there," because, the Crown actually sells the right to access whatever is below the ground. The owner of the land has to allow that to happen, and there is a board in place to look after that. Maybe the minister could help me a little bit with that one.
Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct, both with respect to pipelines and wells -- gas wells, etc. -- where the owner really has no choice. The people who want to use the land, either for a pipeline or drilling purposes, can apply, and the owner's protection, if you like, is through an arbitration process. Most often, I suspect, there is a voluntary agreement between the owner and the company that wants to use the land. This issue isn't dealt with in the existing legislation and, unfortunately, is not dealt with in this new legislation. It's an issue for resolution, and I gather that it came to the attention of the sector and the ministry -- those involved in putting the bill together -- at a late stage; therefore no proposed solution could be put together in time for this bill. So it really is an outstanding issue. It needs to be addressed, and we will continue to work on that. Presumably that would take the form of amendments in future years, once some form of resolution can be found.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate your response. I'm a bit disturbed, though, when the minister says that this wasn't brought to anyone's attention until just a little while ago. If I went back in Hansard, I could find -- probably three years ago or maybe even longer than that -- that I brought to the attention of the Ministry of Energy at the time that there were these situations in my constituency that should be addressed.
Like I say, the bill is good. I don't have any problem with the intent of the bill; the direction is great. But it's rather exasperating to find the minister say that they weren't forewarned, especially when they have been, on more than one occasion. And it is a serious problem. It may not affect a lot of people any place other than in the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South, because there are not very many pipelines. But it does affect quite a few of my constituents, in a big way.
The minister knows full well that there are negotiations going on right now with many of the farming interests in the constituency of Peace River North and with his ministry on how we deal with some of these issues. This is not something new. This has been going on for well over a year -- in fact, probably even two years. So it surprises me. I'm not saying that the minister should know it inside out, but it surprises me that when drafting this legislation the ministry wouldn't say: "Look, we have to deal with this issue somehow. I know it's not an easy issue, but somehow we have to deal with it to look out for the interests of those people." I guess I'm a bit disturbed that again it is people in the north; it's east of the Rockies
I think it's incumbent on the ministry to come forward with some kind of an amendment to this piece of legislation to deal with those issues. There's lots of information within the ministry about some of the problems we've been having with liens on pipelines in the northeast. I would hope that they would go back and draft something and bring forward an amendment to address those issues. Simply saying that it came to the attention of the ministry just recently doesn't wash with me, because it's been at least three years. In fact, I'll go back and find in the Hansard where I brought it to the ministry's attention and was told that, yes, the ministry was quite well aware and had been aware for a long time that these issues are in the northeast and that we had to deal with them. So I think we should either be bringing forward an amendment to deal with this legislation right now or getting a commitment from the minister that his ministry will bring forward an amendment to this piece of legislation to deal with that issue next session.
Hon. D. Miller: Notwithstanding the fact that we're debating a non-existent section of the bill, I want to say that perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough, and I just want to make a couple of points.
An Hon. Member: That's the difficulty; it's non-existent.
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps that's true, and I'll offer some further explanations. I'm not suggesting that the issue is one that has not been around for some time or one that the member hasn't raised on previous occasions. It's clear that it's probably been around. It's also clear that there's been a desire for an amended or a new Builders Lien Act, as described to me, for 25 years, and somehow it never got to the top of the pile. It somehow wasn't a priority. So I was given the responsibility for the construction sector. I sat down with them, and I said: "What's on your list?" They said: "This is." I went back and took a look and said, "I'll make sure I try to get it through," and we've done that.
The fact is that there has not been a consensus on what to do or how to construct a resolution of the issue you describe. That might be a shared responsibility. I'll certainly take the share that belongs properly with this ministry and with the government, and I'll give you my commitment that it is an issue we'll try to address and find a solution for.
I could be equally vociferous, hon. member. You and your party have held those ridings for as long as I can remember, and you have never fixed the problem. Now you stand up here today with instant criticism -- fair enough. I'm telling you: I take it seriously. We will try. My instructions to my staff will be to work with the sector and others to try to find a solution that we can bring forward in an amendment. But I don't apologize for bringing forward a bill that has been sought after for 25 years, or, as I said in my opening remarks, that might not be absolutely perfect in every respect but which is fundamentally important to the construction sector -- and the construction sector in your constituency.
We'll look at that particular problem, and hopefully the people who are engaged in that can come up with something that is workable and that will find its way into this bill.
R. Neufeld: I'm not going to argue this any longer, but I do want to get on the record that if someone is reading the minister's remarks, if they go back and look at what I said, I think I said -- in fact, I know I said -- that I support the bill. It's a good piece of legislation. I don't have any problem with any part of the whole bill. I said that in my opening remarks to the minister.
All I did was ask for some kind of decision on a problem that now, all of a sudden, the minister is obviously saying he has been well aware of for a long time, not just recently. That's all I'm trying to say. I didn't say anything about the bill or that I had any problem with the bill. I think it's a good one. It's long overdue. If the minister needs that pat on the back, I give it to him. I'm just saying that there is an issue that has to be dealt with. It has obviously, as he has stated, been an issue within the ministry for a long time, and we should be trying to deal with it.
[ Page 6429 ]
Whether or not before I came into this House somebody wanted to, or not, has nothing to do with me. I arrived here in 1991; the minister himself arrived, I guess, in 1986. So be it. I can't help that.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
G. Plant: When the minister says, in effect, that it is always possible to try to improve perfection, I should say that this is an excellent step. I really have only a very, very few comments on what is a fairly comprehensive piece of legislation in terms of creating a whole legal regime.
The second of my comments -- and again, this is just a comment -- is that this bill makes a change in the way owners give notice of the fact that they don't want to be held responsible for work done on their premises in circumstances where the work has not been done at their request. In the old regime, the owner had to post a notice up on the premises themselves. Here we're moving to a regime where the owner will file a notice of interest in the land title office. I think I understand the rationale for that, and again, I know that this bill represents the product of a lot of work over time.
I want to note here the concern that this will mark a change, and that it will require contractors and subcontractors to now pay attention, on perhaps a more diligent basis, to what's going on in the land title office in respect of the property. I hope that will be a transition that is a good one for them. Basically, I'm simply pausing here to note that this is a change that is of some significance and to express the hope, which I'm sure the minister shares, that it will work fairly for all parties involved in the process. If it doesn't, then, like one or two other provisions in this bill, we'll obviously have to look at it some distance down the road and try to fix it.
Hon. D. Miller: I feel ill-equipped to comment on what may happen after the lawyers get hold of this, but I appreciate the member's comments.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
[5:30]
On section 5.Hon. D. Miller: I would move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.
[SECTION 5, in the proposed subsection (7) by deleting "30 days' notice," and substituting "10 days' notice,".]Amendment approved.
Section 5 as amended approved.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
Hon. D. Miller: I would move that the bill be amended as follows: in section 7, in the proposed subsection 1(b)(i), by deleting "along" and substituting "alone."
Amendment approved.
Section 7 as amended approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: In section 8(4), there is the provision that shows how the holdback is to be paid. It's expressed in permissive terms. It says that the payment under subsection (4) "may be made." I should say that there was a discussion in the briefing about whether or not the word "may" should be the word "must."
I understand that the larger context of this is that the courts construing the general law of liens have essentially said that, yes, there is an obligation to pay the holdback after the expiry of the holdback period. There's nothing here intended to change that basic obligation. I wonder if the minister could confirm that his understanding is the same as mine.
Hon. D. Miller: The main issue is dealt with in section 9. I gather, with respect to a previous proposed bill, that this was the agreed-upon wording. The subject is intended to instruct the owner when they can pay out the holdback and not be in violation of the act -- not when they must pay it.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.
[SECTION 9,Amendment approved.(a) in the proposed subsection (1) (a) by adding ", and" at the end,
(b) in the proposed subsection (1) (b) by deleting "subcontract, and" and substituting "subcontract.", and
(c) by deleting the proposed subsection (1) (c).]
Section 9 as amended approved.
Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
G. Plant: The limit on lien claims is set at $200 here. I just want to record the observation that, at least the first time I looked through this, it struck me that that was a fairly small number. But I am informed that this figure of $200 was really part of the whole process of consultation and compromise and that this is the number that everybody who was part of that process accepted. To suggest now that a better number might be $1,000 would require going back to all of those parties. I think if that is the case, and the minister can confirm that that's the case, then frankly, we are better to move forward rather than stop the process.
So perhaps I could just have the minister's confirmation that that is really the explanation for why the number is $200, as opposed to a somewhat larger number.
Hon. D. Miller: I would note that this $200 is a ten-times increase from the existing act, which is $20. There are some opinions that suggest it should be $2,000, but the $200 is consistent with other jurisdictions. Alberta, for example, is $300; Manitoba, $300; and Saskatchewan, $100. So I think we can live with it for now.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
[ Page 6430 ]
On section 19.
R. Neufeld: On just a point of clarification, the section says: "A person who files a claim of lien against an estate or interest in land to which the lien claimed does not attach is liable for costs and damages incurred by an owner of any estate or interest in the land as a result of the wrongful filing of the claim of lien."
Would that section -- maybe the minister would like to explain that a little further for me -- apply to the issue that we were speaking about earlier in relation to a pipeline? The lien is against a pipeline, not the pipeline right-of-way. So if someone liened the pipeline and a person actually lost the sale of their land, as I read this section they could sue as a result of the wrongful filing of the claim of lien. Would it be correct to interpret that section to read that?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, going back, I'm not in a position to offer even a layperson's legal opinion about this. The wording of the section is very clear in that the principle embodied is that if you file a wrongful claim, there is a penalty attached for doing that. Now, in the cases you're talking about, presumably any liens that may be filed would be by contractors or workers who had not been paid what they felt was owing, etc., not by the landowner. So I don't know that it necessarily presents any more complications at all to the situation we discussed earlier in the definitions section of the bill. I think it's fairly straightforward. And again, going back to that section, it's clearly an issue that has to be pursued.
Sections 19 to 55 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 38, Builders Lien Act, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?
Hon. D. Miller: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 38, Builders Lien Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Miller: I would call committee stage of Bill 50, the Power for Jobs Development Act and, with the indulgence of the House, wait for the arrival of my staff to begin proceedings.
POWER FOR JOBS DEVELOPMENT ACT
The House in committee on Bill 50; R. Kasper in the chair.On section 1.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a number of questions on section 1, the definitions section. Maybe I will start right at the top. There's a definition of the administrator, and I know it doesn't say in the act, but I wonder if the minister has someone in mind yet for the role. What sort of requirements does the minister see as being required to perform that role in a meaningful way?
I believe we've had trouble in the past finding qualified people, with sufficient energy background, to sit on the board of B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the minister expects to have the same difficulty finding someone to fill this role.
Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't have any individual at this point, nor do I expect that it would be terrifically onerous. Essentially, the job is to advise government on prospective developments. In that respect, the ability to analyze proposals is, I think, paramount. I think my ministry has many qualified individuals who have performed
G. Farrell-Collins: I wasn't doing that at all. I'm just trying to find out what role the minister envisions for this person. Does the minister intend to find somebody within the ministry to fill this role, or is this going to be an independent, a third party? Is this going to be an office? Are there going to be four or five people? Is it going to be a full-time position or a part-time position? Does he have any idea what this role will look like?
Hon. D. Miller: It's not required absolutely that the person be within the ministry. It could be an agency. Again, I just think, and I know from my experience over the past year or so, that it's not uncommon to have people come forward to the ministry with proposals for developments of one kind or another. We do a fairly rigorous analysis to inform ourselves whether they're real or not, whether the parties that are coming forward are asking for the moon, whether their proposition is fundamentally economic or not economic. That's the kind of role, in terms of analyzing those to see where the potential for market-based power might be used to facilitate some of those kinds of developments.
G. Farrell-Collins: We will discuss it a little later in section 9, which is the mandate of the administrator. There is a whole series of questions there about the reporting structure and the role of the administrator with regard to cabinet and the minister. But there is, at a later date, a
[5:45]
If the minister sees it as just an advisory role, a staff role, or if the minister sees it as somebody sort of being independent, being on the side and able to speak freely, being able to give recommendations freely without having to report directly to the minister[ Page 6431 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Before I deal with the member's question, I apologize. I should properly have moved the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 1, in paragraph (a) of the proposed definition of "development power rate", by adding "or the government" after "payable to the authority".SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed definition of "rate" and substituting the following definition:
"rate" includes
(a) a general, individual or joint rate, fare, toll, charge, rental or other compensation of a public utility or of the government,SECTION 1, by adding the following definition:(b) a rule, practice, measurement, classification or contract of a public utility, the government or a corporation relating to a rate, and
(c) a schedule or tariff respecting a rate;.
"supply" includes wheeling by the authority of surplus electricity that is a portion of the Canadian entitlement;.]I thought I had done that. I've been so busy lately
G. Farrell-Collins: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for getting me a copy. I would have appreciated it a little earlier. Perhaps what we can do is
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly I'd be amenable to that. If the member wants someone from my staff to have a brief discussion about the
G. Farrell-Collins: With leave of the minister and the Chair, perhaps we can continue with the other discussion on section 1. I know we are probably recessing in about ten minutes or so, and it will give me time to look at the amendment through the dinner hour and find out if I have any questions -- and I may have none, and then it can just pass.
I had asked the minister a question about the structure of the office of the administrator: whether this is going to be internal, whether this person is going to be at arm's length or whether it's going to be somebody who reports directly to the minister, to a deputy, to an ADM or a director. Does the minister have an answer for that yet? Does he know what this position is likely to be?
Hon. D. Miller: No. It will be a senior position, whether it's in the ministry or an agency. The primary purpose, I will repeat, is that the government takes the attitude, quite properly, that the power belongs to the Crown, and that the Crown alone will make decisions as to its allocation. Therefore we want to use that in a way that will expand jobs and expand economic opportunity in the province. It has to go through some rigour -- as do issues that might arise in my ministry when a firm is in distress -- while we can put together a restructuring with the private sector that's subject to Treasury Board. And believe me, they're pretty tough. So as I've described a couple of times now, it will be to try to ensure that whatever is being put forward makes sense.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, and I'm not trying to get into a big policy discussion with the minister on this; I'm just trying to get a sense of what the role is going to look like. Is this to be somebody who is at arm's length, who makes recommendations to be accepted or rejected by the Crown -- as they will do? Or is it somebody internal to the ministry? What will the reporting structure of the administrator be? How is that likely to work? Is it only in the form of the annual report to the minister, or is there going to be some other ongoing reporting structure?
Hon. D. Miller: There are other reporting requirements in a later section, but essentially the person would be reporting to myself, as the minister responsible, and to my ministry. When I say myself, obviously the member appreciates that we have staff, from deputy down, that do the kind of work that's required for an appropriate analysis. So it won't be arm's length. Again, this is a conscious and deliberate act of government to utilize the DSB entitlement to try to create more jobs in our province.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll canvass the role and the mandate of the administrator at a later date in section 9, when we get there.
The definition of "customer" in the bill is a business -- as defined in the act -- that consumes or purchases electricity in an amount greater than 35 kilowatts annually. Can the minister tell me currently how many customers Hydro has that qualify for that?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have a number. I apologize. I hadn't anticipated bringing one with respect to how many customers there are in that category.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just trying to get a sense of why that figure was chosen. Was it just pulled out of the air? I suspect not; I suspect there's a reason why 35 was chosen. Is it to exclude a certain class of customers from applying to Hydro for this, or is it to limit it to a certain number of customers or certain types of projects? Obviously the big industrial customers would qualify, but there's a cutoff line there somewhere. Can the minister give me some explanation -- the rationale -- for choosing the 35-kilowatt figure?
Hon. D. Miller: It follows the B.C. Hydro definition of general service over 35 kilowatts, which was used to distinguish between the industrial-commercial sectors. I'm advised that at that rate, for example, facilities like a large dry-cleaning operation at the lower end would perhaps qualify -- and small sawmills and manufacturers at the upper end. It's consistent with the definitions that are in place.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me
Where does this fit? There are a lot of mines out there that with cheap power become far more economically viable. Can the minister tell me whether that was a consideration -- if the vast majority of currently operating mines
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have a list of current mining operations and how they might rate with respect to this defini-
[ Page 6432 ]
tion. But it is true, and we did say this when we announced the bill, that because they are energy-intensive, mining is one of the sectors that could possibly benefit -- with respect to new developments but also with respect to extending the life of existing
We have no act, and there's nothing in front of government -- no paper -- but to the extent that, conceptually, by accessing a portion of their needs on a market basis they may be able to extend the life of the operation, that's certainly something that's worth pursuing and worth looking at. But I don't have a list of the number
G. Farrell-Collins: So, at this point, the minister doesn't have an idea of exactly where that cutoff is -- which mines or which projects would likely qualify. Can the minister tell me, then, how he has any idea that this bill is going to provide 4,200 new jobs?
Hon. D. Miller: The 4,000 came from extrapolating -- and I don't have the graphs, but my staff member might have the formula that was used
We'll have to wait and see what comes in, but our view is that that amount of power -- if you look at how power is utilized and look at some of the things that are being proposed -- is capable of creating at least that number of jobs. My own view is that I think it should be more, but time will tell what that number ultimately will be.
G. Farrell-Collins: In measuring that, does the minister have a time frame? Is this over a two-year period, a five-year period, ten years, 20 years? Is there a time frame in which we intend to measure that figure? Is there a time frame in which the minister intends to offer this cheap power?
Hon. D. Miller: The power is being returned in stages incrementally starting next year, and the full entitlement, I think, is available in the year 2003 or 2004. So this is clearly a story in progress, and I know the member will be watching vigilantly, wherever he is.
G. Farrell-Collins: Some days you wonder. We'll see whether it's the minister who's administering it, too. You never know; things happen.
I will come back to that a little later, but I do want to ask a quick question before we adjourn for dinner. It deals with the "development power rate" definition, in section 1(b), which states that "a rate that is payable to a public utility or to a municipality or regional district by a business in respect of which an order is made under section 6
Is there any provision whereby the government will either reimburse that municipality with power to deal with that if they then require additional power? Or, in a case where there is in fact no new power being offered by the municipality to any new project that is creating new jobs, but merely a portion of the existing amount of power that the municipality provides is being offered at a rate lower than the contract that may have been in existence at the time, is there provision for the government to reimburse either power or an amount of revenue to that municipality as compensation for the order that they have given them -- for example, it may take place after a recommendation of the job protection commissioner?
Hon. D. Miller: No. I don't know that that would be something to worry about. It simply allows DSB power that is being returned to go through areas where B.C. Hydro is not the supplier of energy -- for example, West Kootenay Power, the city of New Westminster and Kelowna -- and to have that power delivered through those systems. There may be some issues with respect to the wheeling tariff, but there would not be any requirement in terms of compensation.
Given the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
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 House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)
K. Krueger: In her first responses to the questions that we were discussing last Friday, on the development of the program in British Columbia for assessment and treatment of gambling addicts, the minister responded that Treasury Board had only recently approved the $2 million allocation, or at least funding. So I'd like a little clarification of when the approval of funds was made and whether it's the full $2 million for this fiscal year.
[ Page 6433 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: Just so my Premier doesn't have my head on a platter somewhere, that's all. We received approval last week. It's for $1.7 million, because we're a little way into the year already, but yes, it will be annualized for next year.
K. Krueger: Given the fact that this same government discussed an intent to allocate $1.6 million per year several years ago -- this was when Robin Blencoe was the minister responsible for this very subject, for this very issue
Hon. P. Priddy: I need to go back and clarify something, because if it's asked in the House, I probably won't be able to acknowledge it. I mean, it is approved, but it was verbal approval. I want to be very clear about that for both your sake and mine. I suggest that it is $2 million. The $1.7 million is because we're already into the year. It is $2 million, not $1.6 million.
I think what we need to do to establish what
K. Krueger: One of the answers last Friday was that the government would be contracting through community-funded addictions agencies for professional staff to provide prevention and treatment services. Have any of those contracts actually been tendered yet? Where are we with those?
Hon. P. Priddy: The answer to that is no. Treasury Board frowns on people doing that without written approval. No, I have not yet done that.
K. Krueger: Of course, the Minister of Employment and Investment announced this program last March. The ministry had spokesmen talking about having the second-strongest program in Canada. There have been a number of media reports of that sort of statement. So I'm sure the minister feels, too, that there's a sense of urgency to bring these programs on.
In the UBC study that the minister quoted from last week, which I provided to the Minister of Employment and Investment and he apparently provided to her, there was a proposal for a centre of addiction studies. One of the things that I've discovered -- and the minister probably has, too, in her research -- is that there aren't that many people who feel they are experts on gambling addiction in Canada. It certainly has some crossover and overlap to other addiction studies, but it has many unique characteristics, as well.
The UBC proposal included an analysis, a business plan, indicated a readiness, willingness and eagerness to proceed with a centre for addiction studies and laid out a budget. It said they had a building available, the expertise and the graduate students who they would love to have focus on this. Has the ministry considered including the UBC centre for addiction studies in its plans?
Hon. P. Priddy: We looked at the proposal for addiction studies or a centre for excellence. At this stage we do not have that included in our budget estimates. I think we have to get our program up and running and see what is needed.
I don't think there's any doubt, though -- and the member and I talked about that last Thursday or Friday or whenever we last enjoyed this activity -- that there's no question that there is a need for Canadian research and a need for experts in Canada, doing Canadian research about what's happening in this country. But at this stage this is not included in the current budget.
K. Krueger: I take it from the minister's earlier answer that obviously contracts couldn't be let until the funding approval is in place. But surely some moves could be made toward drafting requests for proposal if those are necessary or getting the things in place whereby, when the money is available, decisions could be taken fairly quickly on things like the toll-free line and the counselling services themselves. Could we have an update on the status of those?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is a time line. We are working on proposals for tendering. So that work is being done. I hope it would be done within the next week or two. Yes, there is a very tight time line around implementation for the other factors that we've talked about. So yes, in preparation for being assured that we would receive those resources, we have worked out the time line. The work is underway.
K. Krueger: The minister also spoke of a provincial addictions advisory committee, which sounds like an excellent idea. Have individuals been approached, or is there a list of those individuals already?
[2:45]
Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly people are compiling a list of potential people who may be interested in doing that and have the expertise to do so. But they have not yet been approached.K. Krueger: Is there a target date for the 1-800 number to be in place, so that people have somewhere to go?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is. As I say, target dates are target dates, but we're trying to stay as close to ours as we can: October 1.
K. Krueger: It's good to hear a firm date in mind, at least.
What would the minister say to people, right now, who contact the ministry and say someone in their family has a gambling addiction problem? Where would those people be referred, up until these other services are in place?
Hon. P. Priddy: The two options that come to mind quickly are: firstly, some people are accessing support through their EAP programs, or secondly, there are a number of people participating in GA, or Gamblers Anonymous programs.
K. Krueger: The minister spoke of a regional FTE allocation to do with this particular program, the gambling addiction program. I wonder if we could have an outline of how many FTEs are anticipated and a breakdown between regions, roughly.
Hon. P. Priddy: At this stage there will be a half-time person in each region regardless of the need, etc. Then in high-
[ Page 6434 ]
risk regions
K. Krueger: Just one last question: is there a target date for the filling of these positions or for the assignment of employees to those positions?
Hon. P. Priddy: November 1 is the target, and we intend to meet the target.
M. Coell: Last week we talked about programs for adults in alcohol and drug programs. I just had a couple of follow-up questions on youth programs for alcohol and drugs. We talked about recovery houses last week, as well, for adults and about some of the problems we're seeing with them. Does the ministry fund any alcohol and drug recovery houses for youth?
Hon. P. Priddy: I thought we canvassed this the last time, but perhaps not. I want to clarify the question. Were you asking about supported recovery?
M. Coell: It was the recovery houses for adults we discussed last week. Does the ministry fund any recovery houses for youth?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there are some that are for youth only. There are beds in recovery facilities for male and female youth. Some serve more than one region. I would not suggest that we do not need more. They are youth by themselves; they are not mixed with adults.
M. Coell: Could the minister tell me whether contracted agencies run these facilities or whether they are run by the provincial government?
Hon. P. Priddy: They are run by contracted agencies.
M. Coell: Could the minister tell me how many beds the province is contracting for and how many agencies we're contracting with for that service?
Hon. P. Priddy: In total or for youth?
M. Coell: Only youth.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are ten beds for male use and four beds for female use, which are actually residential beds. Those are for very high-risk on-the-street youth, like some of the youth programs in Vancouver. That doesn't mean that that's all there is for youth. There are a number of youth getting early intervention who are still at home or in day recovery programs.
M. Coell: What is the number of contracted agencies for these 14 beds?
Hon. P. Priddy: I understand it to be three.
M. Coell: Are these agencies supervised, and how are they supervised by the government?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are. Two things have to happen for them. They have to meet provincial standards in what is now our ministry for alcohol and drug programs. They also have to meet the standards of the Community Care Facility Act, which include approval of the hiring of the executive director.
M. Coell: We have 14 beds and three societies. I'm at a loss as to how many beds per society.
Hon. P. Priddy: It's actually three contracts. It's one society, the Pacific Legal Education Association, but it's in three different regions. So it's three different contracts, because it's in three regions.
M. Coell: The minister was going to get me the number of facilities. Does that mean that there are three facilities in the regions, and where would they be?
Hon. P. Priddy: The three regions are Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. We will have to find the additional information you've asked for.
M. Coell: These supportive recovery houses, I guess they would be called, or programs obviously have between one and four beds each, so they are a group home - type operation. Could the minister tell me how much the government funds these agencies per bed or per individual who goes into the facility?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, I cannot. We can get it for you tomorrow morning, if that's acceptable to you.
M. Coell: That's fine. I wonder what the qualifications
Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot read you the specific qualifications, but I would say that there are two kinds of qualifications: one by the Community Care Facility Act, but also one by provincial standards. I can give you the package tomorrow morning, along with the information. I can also give you a copy of the new substance abuse handbook for 1997, which does include that in it, as well.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that the ministry treats these recovery homes differently than the adult ones, because I think it's clear that the adult ones are not being treated the same way as the youth beds. There is obviously a need for these beds, and as the minister says, there's probably a need for more than 14, I'm sure. In a province this large, to have 14 recovery beds for youth is probably stretching resources, I'm sure.
I wonder if we can move on to community health, child development and rehabilitation services. I don't know whether you need a change of staff for that or
[3:00]
Hon. P. Priddy: It's just like a stagecoach, where you pull up and change horses.Just while staff is changing, I want to comment that in terms of the drug and alcohol residential facilities for which we have responsibility
[ Page 6435 ]
looking at those that are free-floating, if you will, to see if we can have standards and letters of qualification for some of those.
M. Coell: The child development and rehabilitation services provide a number of programs. I would like to look at the amount of staffing and the dollar figures for some of the individual programs and then discuss how they are going to work with the new regional plans, as well. The first area would be for speech or language pathology that is under the child development and rehabilitation services. I wonder if the minister could outline that program for me. I'm looking for information on how that now works and how it is going to be changed with the regional process. Is it going to be split up, and are there going to be programs throughout the province for children who need that service?
Hon. P. Priddy: To be clear
Yes, the contracts have been managed centrally, as virtually all contracts have been in this ministry. They will be managed regionally. There are 39 contracted child development centre programs, with 61 speech and language pathologists in those 39 contracted child development centres. I can provide you with a list -- it is fairly extensive -- of the parts of the province it is in. Actually, I would say it is fairly widespread across the province. The intention would certainly be that you will now have that available to you wherever you live in the province. When you live in the north, "available" has a different kind of definition to it. If you live in Kaslo, you shouldn't have to go to Penticton for speech and language. So our intention is to have it as close to home as possible. If you would like a list of where they are, I'm happy to give that to you.
M. Coell: I've had some comments from staff with regard to exactly what the minister says. In the Gulf Islands we have someone who is in 0.6 of a position and has to get to five Gulf Islands and the peninsula. You run fairly short on what you can do.
I see the Chair wishes my attention.
The Chair: We're going to have to recess. The Lieutenant-Governor is apparently arriving in the House imminently. We'll take a short recess and reconvene following the Lieutenant-Governor's departure.
The committee recessed from 3:06 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
M. Coell: I think the minister was just about to answer my question.
Hon. P. Priddy: I was about to at least add additional information to the question. We have been talking about speech and language pathologists, or speech and language services through child development centres. It seems important to add that speech and language for young children is also provided through health regions. On top of our 61 pathologists, there are another 70 speech and language pathologists through health regions.
M. Coell: With the new regional health districts or capital health boards and our staff, are the staff from both ministries going to be rolled into one in this ministry? That means you would go from having just 61 to having 61 plus 70 on your payrolls. How is that going to be coordinated?
Hon. P. Priddy: In the health units or the health boards, all of the employees stay as employees of the health board, but the policy and the dollars are with this ministry.
M. Coell: I'm not clear on how
Hon. P. Priddy: Both of these services
M. Coell: I hope so. I'm still unclear as to how or why you would have employees of the Ministry of Health in one building and the employees of the Ministry for Children and Families both doing the same thing. If they're not, I'd be interested in knowing what it is they're doing differently.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think two things: one of them is that the speech and language pathologists who serve children through the child development centre tend to serve children with a somewhat higher level of need. The speech and language people who serve children through the health boards actually service a somewhat wider range, particularly because we're talking about preschool and identification of children before preschool. In some ways it may be a matter of language. But once the health boards are all functioning, these are not employees of the Ministry of Health any longer -- I won't speak for my colleagues -- but of those regional health boards.
M. Coell: The other area that I wish to canvass in child development rehabilitation services is physiotherapy. Along the same line of questioning, I'd be interested to know how this is going to fit together -- whether you're going to have the Ministry of Health, the Ministry for Children and Families and the number of employees that were there prior to the change. Hopefully, there's still the same number now.
Hon. P. Priddy: The occupational physiotherapy service is provided solely through the child development centre and not through public health at all. So that will stay with the child development centres. We've maintained the numbers; there will not be any reduction at all in that. I think there are almost 80 occupational physiotherapists in the 39 contracted child development centres.
M. Coell: The minister says there are 39 child development centres and 80 physiotherapists. Just to be sure, is there at least one physiotherapist in every one of those 39?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is certainly a physiotherapist in each of those centres. Sometimes there may be two or three; it depends on the size of the region that they're serving. But yes, that's correct.
[ Page 6436 ]
M. Coell: My recollection is that in the past, last year, physiotherapy was also part of the capital regional district. I may be incorrect there. The Ministry of Health, I believe, had physiotherapy services. Do they still have it, or has that been rolled into this ministry as well?
Hon. P. Priddy: It may be that the member's comment is about the specific capital region, because in most areas -- as a matter of fact, in almost all areas -- the physiotherapy for preschool children is provided only by child development centres. There was a small portion -- not in this ministry, and it has not come over to this ministry; it has stayed with the Ministry of Health -- for physiotherapy contracts with Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children. Those have stayed with the Ministry of Health. I don't know if you had a chance to ask them or not, but it has not come to us.
M. Coell: I once was the treasurer of the Queen Alexandra, so I understand that they still have some services there.
If I could move to the nursing support services, they provide respite programs and also school support programs. I think a lot of good work has been done by the staff, and I am interested to see what the government's budget is for this program -- for school support program first and then the nursing respite program second.
Hon. P. Priddy: Under the nursing support services comes -- the member is correct -- in-school support, nursing respite for families and a new program that is actually just under development. The budget for it is
M. Coell: Could the minister tell me how many staff we have employed in that program?
Hon. P. Priddy: I can't break it down specifically for you, but I can tell you that we have 855 public health nurses and that for many of those nurses, this is a component of their work.
M. Coell: This program, I believe, was part of the Ministry of Health, and it has come into this ministry. Could the minister elaborate -- I think I know the role of a public health nurse, and this is coming under their duties -- on how many individuals in a year they would provide service to strictly on that part of the program? Not their whole caseload, but just that part of their caseload.
Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of in-school support, 750 children are served. In terms of nursing respite, 80 families are served.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could elaborate. Are there any other programs that a family with a child that is in need of the program can use through her ministry? Or would this be it -- through the public health nurses for the same sort of service?
Hon. P. Priddy: Not necessarily through the public health nurse per se
[3:30]
M. Coell: Thank you. Those were the numbers I was looking for. When you said 80, I thought: "We have four million people in this province, so this problem's a little larger than that."The next area I'd like to move to is the Healthy Schools program. I believe that's been in place for two or three years or maybe even more now. I'd be interested in knowing the status of the program and how many schools are involved at this point.
Hon. P. Priddy: I know that the member will probably ask about others, different from Kids at Risk and school meals and all those other things. But the Healthy Schools program per se is an initiative which uses a community development process -- I think you know that -- to provide school-aged children and youth with the opportunity to be involved in developing their skills and participating in decision-making. Annually over 60,000 students, in collaboration with teachers, parents, administrators, community people and community service providers, work together to develop a shared vision of the attributes of what makes a healthy school and what kind of actions are necessary to keep a healthy school in place.
We do have a budget for that program. It provides funding for a variety of actions at the school level. It addresses a fairly large range of issues, some of which we speak of in other programs as well: self-esteem, peer mentoring, environmental protection, nutritious food choices, conflict resolution, injury prevention, eating behaviour disorders and community action for health. The budget is $450,000, and it's in 60 school districts.
M. Coell: I am encouraged to see it that widely spread. I was involved in the Healthy Saanich 2000 project when it came out from the federal government -- it seems like years ago, and I'm sure it is. It has been enhanced, and it has grown into many different areas. I guess this is one of them. It's very positive for students to become involved in actual decisions that would make their environment healthier at school. I think that's a good program.
I would be interested in finding out how a school gets involved. Is it right from the students initiating it through to the superintendent of the school board, who would apply for a grant? What would those grants have generally been? If you have a few examples, I would be interested in those.
Hon. P. Priddy: It can be initiated anywhere -- by a superintendent or by a school district. My local experience is with two schools where it was initiated by students. It was really quite exciting, because I actually went and made a presentation to the school board and said why it ought to be. It was actually quite powerful.
The grants are anywhere between about $4,000 and $8,000. Some have been as high as $15,000, which would have
[ Page 6437 ]
to be, I think, a bit unusual in a larger school. So they're for fairly small amounts of money, but they're making a huge difference in students' participation in school.
M. Coell: How is it administered? Do we have staff that just do this, or is it part of a department? I'm wondering how many staff would be involved in administering this program.
Hon. P. Priddy: Until this year, we have contracted with a coordinator who may cover several schools to do that work. But with the move to the regions, we're actually looking again at that structure to see if there's a better and more efficient way to do that.
M. Coell: Would the minister be contemplating allowing the regions to actually have some of that money in each region, contracting it that way? Or is it going to be centralized?
Hon. P. Priddy: In the regions.
M. Coell: I think that sounds very sensible.
I wonder if I can move on to youth forensic psychiatric services and start with youth court services. I believe this is a very important service for young people who get in trouble with the law, and it's not usually their first time by the time that this service is used. I would be interested in hearing how many staff we have for youth court services, who provide a court-ordered assessment of a juvenile.
Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the assessment, which I think is the first question you were asking about youth court, we have 60 direct government employees who participate in that. We also contract through 19 agencies that provide psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses and social workers. I don't have that particular number with me, but I think we can probably get it for you.
M. Coell: I would be interested in getting that number at a later date.
The in-patient services serve as an assessment of whether a person is fit to stand trial and whether they should be raised to adult court. What I'm looking for is: how is it coordinated now with the probation officers who have come over to your ministry? I'm trying to get a fix on whether this is actually going to be a better system, where you've got workers from the Ministry for Children and Families now working with probation, because they are together, and probation officers working with the assessment team through the local juvenile court.
Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, whether with the Attorney General or over here, the youth probation officers have always had a particularly good working relationship with people doing the assessments in court. The one piece yet to be worked out with the new ministry is the issue of co-location, and that's a question we still haven't finished working out.
M. Coell: When a youth has broken the law and ends up in a court, you seem to have a number of workers working with this individual. You would have a lawyer, the family, the assessment team, possibly a probation officer and possibly a host of other workers within the Ministry for Children and Families. Who will be the key person in coordinating how that assessment is handled and what the recommendation to the court will be?
Hon. P. Priddy: If it is court-ordered, as I think the member indicated, then it's always forensic staff who take the lead in that. That has been, and that will continue to be, because of the court order.
M. Coell: Then nothing will change; you'll just have more coordination -- hopefully, more coordination.
The other area with regard to psychiatric services is the out-patient services that are provided for violent offenders, sexual offenders, youth. I'd be interested in having an update as to what that program looks like, now that it has come over to the ministry, and how the staff relate to one another regarding assessments. Some of these might not be court-ordered -- the assessments of a psychotic individual who may be coming in the other door, through a family doctor or their family. I would be interested to see how that is going to work in the new ministry.
[3:45]
Hon. P. Priddy: We think we have an opportunity to provide a closer degree of coordination, although -- as in my previous comment -- there has been quite a high degree of coordination. Maybe I could just list for you some of the programs and some of the assessments that those staff would be involved with. For some of the youth that you've asked about, the out-patient services that our staff will coordinate include assessment and specialized treatment for sexual and violent offenders; young persons experiencing post-traumatic stress psychotic illness disorder who are currently in custodial institutions or on probation; training and supervision of contracted agencies and psychological services; consultation with community agencies on sexual offending, violent offending, anger management; assessment and treatment for youth on probation or in regional youth custody centres.I think one of the things in terms of coordination is that because the team is now together, you might have, for instance
M. Coell: I wonder if the minster could tell me what the total budget for youth court services is, which would include out-patient and in-patient. I'm interested to know how many youth use that service per year.
Hon. P. Priddy: Including both residential and out-patient, 2,649 youths were served last year, with a budget of $9.3 million.
M. Coell: One area that I have some concern about and some interest in is services for youth who develop schizophrenia psychosis. Your ministry now deals with all of the extremes, from onset detection to the criminal justice system, until someone gets to be an adult and moves to a different ministry. Certainly the most important time for treatment diagnosis is 12, 13 and 14 years old, for both young men and young women. I am interested in looking specifically at services for children who develop schizophrenia psychosis. They may not come through the court system in the beginning. They may end up in the court system through breaking the law or for some other reason. I would be interested in looking
[ Page 6438 ]
at what early detection the new ministry has for those diseases and what programs are being offered on first detection for those problems.
Hon. P. Priddy: I just wanted to check with the folks who do the work every day. It's sort of a radical approach, but
But at that stage, you can have a referral from anybody. We might get a referral from a teacher, from the youth themselves or from a family. It's a fairly open referral system in being able to respond to that. They would be able to refer themselves -- or a family, as I say. It's often from the physicians and teachers. An assessment would be done at an out-patient facility or, as my hospital has, at an adolescent unit or in the hospital, and then we'd move on from there.
M. Coell: That's where I'd like to move on to: what services are provided once a diagnosis is made? I guess what I'm looking for is: whether we are providing enough services and enough detection, which would stop these people from getting into the court system, where it's extremely expensive and extremely bad for them as well.
Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of once the assessment
I'm going to give you a range, I guess: group therapy; family therapy; individual therapy; case management, where the team would work with the youth, the family. It could be the school or it could be other places where that youth is involved in the community, whether it's a pre-employment program or a school program.
They would likely be followed by a psychiatrist, as well, who would be doing case coordination, and by liaison with community partners, who are other service providers who can ensure that the mental health services are appropriate to the community needs that the youth has.
M. Coell: I think what I'm looking for -- and the minister provided most of that -- is: who will coordinate that? I think one of the things in Gove's recommendations is that there needed to be someone following up on that. I know that the minister has some experience in mental health and I know that I do, and I don't think anyone would agree that we're doing enough. It seems to be the part of health that really hasn't had a lot of attention in the last 20 years in Canada. I think there are some opportunities here, and I think the government is on the right track. I just want, for my own sake, to ensure that once a person is diagnosed, there's someone there making sure, because
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm told that -- and certainly this is obviously in the region, in the community, as opposed to the court-ordered one -- it would be the mental health professional that would take the responsibility for pulling those people together, for doing the case coordination and so on -- not, obviously, for doing all the work but for ensuring that the work happens. In that case, they would be the case coordinator.
M. Coell: That person would work for the Ministry for Children and Families?
Interjection.
M. Coell: Okay. Has that system been set up now, with the creation of the new ministry? Is that actually in place, or is that something we're working towards?
Hon. P. Priddy: It is happening in most parts of the province. According to staff, it's actually been happening for some period of time. You know, again, it's one of those where you can go find a place in the province where it isn't. So I'm not suggesting that this is happening everywhere. But it is set up; it is in the regions. It has been happening for some time.
[4:00]
I think it's important to note that our next major initiative, now that at least the risk assessment for social workers is finished -- we haven't finished it for all the contracted agencies yet -- is integrated case management. That's when we really will be able to assess how well that is working, because that's what Gove has talked about. I'm told it's already working in the regions -- probably consistently in some places; less in others.M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that, because one of the comments I get from people working in the mental health field is that there isn't that coordination there, that someone often has to break the law before they get the attention of a professional. With that disease, too, it's sometimes progressive. As the minister knows, people go off their medications and have a psychotic episode and need services at that point. So it's going to be an area that will be ongoing, I'm sure, for the ministry to address. But I'm pleased to hear how you're moving. I think that will help a lot of people who have fallen through the cracks as they get older and leave their teen years and are basically responsible for themselves. If they're doing good, they're doing good; if they're doing bad, it can create a lot of havoc for themselves, their families and society. So I'm pleased to hear that you're moving in that direction.
The minister mentioned that there are a number of contracted agencies that deliver services to people with psychotic illness disorders and schizophrenia. Could the minister tell me what the budget is for contracted agencies in this particular part of her ministry?
Hon. P. Priddy: For all child and youth mental health services in contracted agencies: $17.16 million.
M. Coell: Thank you. I think those are all the questions I have on youth court services. I know my colleague has some questions concerning his riding.
[ Page 6439 ]
M. de Jong: I have a series of questions for the minister about a type of facility. I'm going to try to refer them back to a specific facility that is located in Maple Ridge. I don't want the minister to be misled about where it is I'm going. My questions stem from a general curiosity about how these matters are dealt with; however, I will be referring back to a particular facility: R.S. Group Home in Maple Ridge. I have some particular concerns with respect to the goings-on at that facility.
First of all, if I can ask and establish
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: I have two problems, and maybe you can help. I'm trying to figure out how to respond respectfully to questions that people have about specific facilities. We've got 12,000 contracts; we haven't got 12,000 contracts here with us, to be able to talk about each and every facility.
I can give you part of an answer on this, and maybe for some of the other questions -- if there's a way to make systemic questions
M. de Jong: The information I have indicates that the facility is under some manner of investigation. When the minister uses the word "audit," that suggests to me that there's an examination of the financial component, the financial relationship between the operators, the provincial government and the ministry. Is the minister in a position to advise whether or not that examination is restricted to financial matters, as the word "audit" suggests, or is there a broader investigation taking place that includes the care that was being administered at these facilities?
Hon. P. Priddy: I guess there are two points. I know that the word "audit" from the comptroller general often means only a financial audit, although having had one-on-one service in part of a ministry I was in, I did find it quite broad-ranging and far beyond financial issues. I can't go much beyond this, hon. member, and I think you'll understand that. But there were some additional issues identified, and we are doing some additional investigations.
M. de Jong: That's helpful. I will try to present questions that relate to this service, as opposed to this facility, but I will inevitably slip back into referring to the one which I raised here specifically.
In terms of the contractual relationship to operate one of these facilities, how does that exist? Is there an amount of money paid per child? Is there a contract, generally, that sets out what services are to be provided? Again, if the minister is able, can she indicate whether such a contract exists with respect to this particular home?
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think I'm going to be able to answer the last part of your question.
With any agency -- 12,000 of them -- with whom we contract, there are contracts around financial arrangements and also around performance. But one of the major initiatives of this ministry, almost since we started, has been the issue of contract restructuring and reform. I'm the first person to say that contracts can be better written. They can be more specific about outcome -- and they need to be. I can't answer your question about the contract for that facility.
M. de Jong: To the minister: would it be unusual for services to be provided by an outside agency to the ministry without any kind of contract being in existence? Would that be an unusual state of affairs?
Hon. P. Priddy: This is like a setup. The answer that everybody assures me of is yes, that would be unusual. But I've been around government and human services long enough to know that as soon as I say that would be unusual, somebody would provide me with eight examples. But all of my staff say yes, that would be unusual.
M. de Jong: Well, that's the answer I expected. Lest the minister
Hon. P. Priddy: I've been around too long.
M. de Jong: I can't tell her one way or another whether a contract exists here. The material I have suggests that if there is a contract, there's some doubt about whether its terms are being abided by. That is something I will urge the minister to pursue.
I'm as interested in learning whether or not there are guidelines in place. Call it a minimum standard by which a contractor must abide in order to provide service to children, in conjunction with an arrangement with the ministry. That interests me very much -- whether there's a checklist, in effect, that the ministry would go through when an individual representing an agency or a company comes to the ministry with a proposal that says: "We wish to provide the following service."
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is. I'd probably be the first person to say that we wouldn't be working as hard on contract restructuring and reform if we were satisfied with the way they all were. In my own personal experience in human services, I've seen very good contracts that were very specific about outcome and so on, and I've seen contracts that were less so. But yes
I want to just add -- and I think the member would do this anyway, I'm sure -- that if the member has any information that he thinks might be of value to us in the investigation or the work that we're doing, we'd be pleased to receive that -- but obviously, I don't mean here.
M. de Jong: I think that from the line of questioning, it will be apparent what some of my concerns are, and I'm happy to expand upon that at another time with the ministry's staff.
With respect to the guidelines that are in force
[ Page 6440 ]
home for troubled teens, as it were, 14 to 19 years of age. Can the minister indicate whether or not it would be standard practice for the ministry to insist upon 24-hour supervision at homes of this sort?
[4:15]
Hon. P. Priddy: Again, I'm not going to comment on this particular one. In any facility that I've had any experience with -- and I've checked with my ministry staff -- either children or youth are out of the home during the day because they're at school or other kinds of places. Facilities have a responsibility to make arrangements for when someone is sick, can't be at school, etc. There's a responsibility to make arrangements to have supervision for that child or for that youth. The vast majority of resources for children and youth in this province have 24-hour care, but again I'm talking about what our principles would be around that.M. de Jong: In a facility that was tendering care to children who at a minimum had had some entry or some involvement in the youth court system, would it be the minister's expectation that children from that background who are placed would be deserving of 24-hour supervision? I'm not trying to pin the minister down here, although it may seem that way from her perspective. I'm trying as best I can to get a sense of what the ministry's approach to different types of children is. Clearly, what I am referring to here are troubled youth who have been involved in the criminal courts.
Hon. P. Priddy: In any situation where we have children or youth in a residential contracted facility model, we would anticipate that that facility is able to provide 24-hour care. That doesn't necessarily mean that if someone has privileges to go out there is always somebody who has to go with them, but in terms of providing in-house support, yes.
M. de Jong: That was my interest -- within the facility, within the group home more so than in school or other venues.
I wonder if the minister can indicate, when a contract has been entered into with an agency, individual or company to operate a group home of the sort that we are discussing, what the ministry's expectation is and where that expectation is enshrined within ministry policy about the people who will be providing the house-parent service. Is there an expectation? Is that generally laid out in a contract? Is the expectation that the individual with whom the ministry contracts would be providing the service? Where would that be laid out so that an interested third party could ascertain what the arrangement was going to be, who was going to be delivering the care?
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to comment -- again, it may not apply to this facility -- that some facilities have a house-parent model and some have a 24-hour-staffing model, so it could be either one. In the contract that is signed with the contracted agency or individual, or whoever it is, schedule A lays out the expectation of the background of the people who are providing the service, along with things around criminal-record checks and so on. The target date is October. A new set of residential standards is coming out that will provide far greater clarity, specificity, efficaciousness, etc., to the expectations around residences, standards of care, people working there, etc., which we have been working on for a period of time. We also have a complaints process that we have developed in every region of the province, and we will investigate any complaint brought forward.
M. de Jong: If I could just review what I think the minister is saying: generally she would expect a contract to be in place between an agency delivering service and the ministry -- she can't guarantee that that is the case in every single instance, but that's her expectation. Where a contract like that does exist, she would expect there to be a schedule A which would set out, amongst other things, the expectations that the ministry has concerning the qualifications of the people employed by the contracting agency to deliver the front-line service to the client, within the home. Have I restated that accurately?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct. With 12,000 contracts, I would not for a minute suggest that they are all perfect. That's why we have an audit capacity. That's why we have a capacity for people to make a complaint and have it reviewed. And that is very much about what the contract structuring and reform and the residential standards are about. We would not be spending all this time if we thought we already had a system in place that was working perfectly.
M. de Jong: We're all optimistic about the improvements we can make to the system. We are, however, working with an existing format, and for better or worse, that must be the subject of our examination at the moment, recognizing the minister's desire to improve upon that.
With that in mind, if we have established that there is a contract which sets out the ministry's expectations regarding programming and the qualifications of the people involved, can I ask the minister: what -- to this point -- at least, has been the mechanism by which those facilities are reviewed to ascertain whether those standards as set out in the contract are actually being met? I don't know if she can do this in terms of explaining the degree of regularity with which an inspection -- if that is the correct word -- would take place. What is the mechanism by which the ministry assures itself that in this case the children being referred to a facility are receiving the standard of care that they think they are supposed to be getting?
Hon. P. Priddy: In the current system, which is the system you are asking about -- where we're sort of trying to change the wheels while driving down the highway and keep the system running -- there are probably four or five ways in which we work to have that happen.
One of them -- you mentioned this earlier, or we did -- is the comptroller general. We pay about $800,000 a year to the comptroller general in terms of reviews that that office does. My experience with the comptroller general reviews has been that it's broader than a financial one. Second, the contract is reviewed once a year because it's renewed once a year. We're having a look at that, as well. But it is reviewed once a year, so that is also an opportunity. Third, there are resource workers in every community that are supposed to be attached to the resources. It is the responsibility of those resource workers, as well, to be in those facilities to have a look at what is going on, on a more spontaneous, day-to-day basis, I suppose, than the comptroller general. Fourth is our new complaints policy around our investigations. Fifth, we will often have independent officers of the Legislature or other bodies come to us and bring forward a concern, which we follow up on.
M. de Jong: With respect to the resource workers, I think what I heard the minister describe was a more site-focused inspection service, although that tends to have negative connotation when you talk about inspection, by a ministry person
[ Page 6441 ]
who would attend at the actual facility. I am sure this will change, depending on the nature of the facility. I have two questions: would they be expected to visit any such contracted facility a minimum number of times a year? Would they also be expected to produce regular reports chronicling the status of the particular facility?
[4:30]
Hon. P. Priddy: There is not a requirement for a particular number of times a year for resource workers per se. They are expected to keep process notes when they visit on site. However, every youth or child is expected to be seen every three months by their social worker. So, I mean, that's another piece of who goes in and sees the child or program and sees what's going on within that.The other thing I expect to see is from our review on our Safeguards project, which is our task force on foster care. I'm certainly expecting that there will be recommendations about the use of resource workers, frequency and so on.
M. de Jong: Again to ensure that I understand this correctly, a child in care who will have been placed in one of these group homes will be seen at least every three months by a ministry official. That visit or that meeting need not take place at the facility. If I were to suggest to the minister that it, in most cases, did not take place at the facility, would I be correct?
Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly the criterion for the resource worker is that they must visit on site. It does not say the social worker must visit on site versus off site, although good common practice would suggest that it should happen. I don't think I could give you a percentage of
M. de Jong: In fairness to the minister, maybe what I'm trying to say is: it's possible, without violating any existing ministry guidelines, for a child to be in a group home and not have a ministry official visit the facility they are resident in for, let us say, 12 months. They may not be happening with regularity. But it's possible for that to happen without any existing guidelines being broken.
Hon. P. Priddy: It is possible, you are correct. I think it is unusual, particularly because resource workers have a responsibility to actually go to the site. It is not explicit in policy that social workers must. But all of our
M. de Jong: I'm beginning to detect a bit of testiness, not so much with the minister but perhaps others. But I don't want to mislead anyone. I obviously have a concern about a specific facility, which ultimately I'm going to suggest to the minister needs work, needs to be looked at. We already know it's being looked at, so I don't ask these questions in a vacuum, along the line that anything is possible. I'm asking the questions because I have received indications that this very thing is happening. I don't want to mislead the minister about where I'm coming from on that point. Insofar as there is apparently a policy vacuum in a particular area, then let's address it. Let's find out if it's having a negative impact and deal with it.
Are facilities of the sort that we are considering -- group homes for troubled teens -- required to maintain logbooks? Is that a requirement either contractually or through other ministerial policies or guidelines?
Hon. P. Priddy: Sometimes we just have a bit of debate back here, but I hope people don't see us as testy. As the other member who's been in here knows, I try and be really honest in my answers to you. If it's not happening or it's possible that it doesn't happen, that's what I tell you. I could wrap it up in rhetoric and do something else with it. I don't do that. I am as honest as I can be in my answers to you.
There is a requirement that there are records kept. It may not say logbooks, but there is a requirement in the contract that records be kept.
An important fact: I agree with you that if there is a policy vacuum, we should deal with it. That's why we are. The residential standards that will be out in October will be much clearer about the kind of recordkeeping expected by the ministry -- not just, "You must keep records," but the kinds of records, what you expect in it, the kind of outcomes you expect, all of that kind of thing. So we are dealing with the fact that there's a bit of a vacuum.
M. de Jong: I take it, then, from the minister's answer that if there's not a logbook, no requirement for a daily journal, there are incident reports that are kept. Whose responsibility is it for forwarding them to the minister? Is that the contracting agent? Is that the resource officer? What compels a contracting agent to produce these sorts of records?
Hon. P. Priddy: I assume the member means: above and beyond good moral standards and practice, what would require people to do that? Of course, there is not a requirement that people keep a daily log, no. There is a contractual requirement that any critical incident is reported to the ministry by the supervisor of the facility.
M. de Jong: I have a more specific question relating to the investigation ongoing, really, into R.S. Group Home. Would that investigation as a matter of course involve an examination of any such records, logbooks, journal entries or process notes? I think that was the term that the minister used.
Hon. P. Priddy: Again, without any reference to the specific facility that the member is talking about, our normal process in investigation would be exhaustive. We would look for any information, both written and verbal, that would allow us to understand what was happening in that facility.
M. de Jong: When a child is placed in a facility such as this
Hon. P. Priddy: There may be a bit of difference between a child in our care and a child that is not, just in terms of the amount of information available to us. But what the facility should get, and should get in a reasonable period of time, is any information that we have available to us. That's a medical history, any psychological assessments, any involvement with the justice system, any family information that may be rele-
[ Page 6442 ]
vant, any school history that may be relevant -- any information we hold about that child that will enable the people in that facility to do their jobs.
M. de Jong: From that response, then, I take it that the minister would be surprised if she learned of a circumstance in which children were being referred as a matter of course to a facility, and the caregivers on the site weren't receiving either psychological reports or medical backgrounds. That would be a departure from her expectation of what is being done in support of these children.
[4:45]
Hon. P. Priddy: It absolutely would not meet my expectation. After 35 years of working in human services, unfortunately I'm often appalled and sometimes not surprised. But it would absolutely not meet my expectation of information.M. de Jong: There is a form that I have become aware of, which becomes a part of a child's file. That form is called "Confidential Information for Referral to Child Care Resource or Family Care Home." Is the minister familiar with that document? Let me start there.
Hon. P. Priddy: I am familiar with the document, just in general terms. I couldn't give you all the pieces to it, but I know it exists.
M. de Jong: Nor could I. My question is: does the ministry take the view that delivery of that document with a child, when a child is placed, satisfies the requirement relating to the medical and psychological background that we were speaking of just now?
Hon. P. Priddy: The document to which the member refers should contain a fair majority of the relevant information about the child or the youth. However, it is either not unusual or sometimes expected that there may be other relevant psychological reports, etc., appended to that, which would allow the facility to provide a more individualized service for that youth.
M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate what she believes would be a reasonable time within which the document I've just referred to and any additional documentation -- medical, psychological -- should be provided to such a facility? We often talk about the contractual obligations imposed upon the contracting agency; perhaps this is an appropriate time to ask whether there should be a contractual obligation or statutory obligation on the Crown to provide that kind of material.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think there are two sets of circumstances that we need to deal with in terms of the answer to that question. One of them is: if this is a child already in care with us -- either they've had a previous placement or we've had a lot of involvement with them and their family -- then that information should be on the table as part of the pre-placement work that is done before the child is placed in the facility. If it does not accompany the child or the youth to the facility, then I would expect it to be provided very soon thereafter, because we should have that information. Is that seven days? Is it eight days? Is it ten days? I would hope that it would be part of the pre-placement work.
If, however, it's a child or youth not known to us and that we have no history on, then it's going to take much longer to assemble that kind of information about their background -- sometimes even finding their family -- including getting psychological assessments, if those need to be done. So that often can be a longer period of time, because we start with a blank slate in that case.
M. de Jong: I wonder if I could ask the minister this, in fairness to her: would she undertake to determine whether or not the review that is taking place with respect to R.S. Group Home will be examining that very issue of documentation being available regarding the background of individual children that were referred there? And if that does not presently comprise a component of the investigation, would she ensure that it will?
Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the remarks of the member. Again, without trying to be specific, any examination of any facility should look at the kinds of issues that you've raised -- of any facility.
M. de Jong: What is the minister's understanding of the relationship that would exist -- again, on a general basis with regard to these types of facilities -- between the contracting agent and the individuals that are
Hon. P. Priddy: We expect any contractor -- any person we contract with -- to abide by all of the policies of the Employment Standards Act.
M. de Jong: That's maybe more helpful than the minister even knows, because it suggests that the ministry would expect that anyone providing service within one of those facilities would be an employee. Do I understand that correctly?
Hon. P. Priddy: For the most part, that is accurate. Again, without reference to this one, there are a number of facilities across this province -- particularly group homes for mentally handicapped adults, for instance -- where they have mentors or friends or people who come in and spend time with them and volunteer with them. To suggest that those people could and would be part of it would be totally unfair. So, with some of those codicils around it, yes, we expect the Employment Standards Act.
M. de Jong: And that is an important distinction. The destination of this line of questioning is upon us now. Would the minister, therefore, be surprised to learn of an instance or a circumstance in which an individual was offered what would be termed free room and board in exchange for providing a supervisory function to children in the kind of group home that we are discussing here today?
Hon. P. Priddy: We would find that unacceptable. As I say, we expect the Employment Standards Act. I would find it unacceptable, and as I've said earlier, I wish I could tell you I was ever surprised. But after this long in this field, unfortunately I am not. But I would find it totally unacceptable.
[ Page 6443 ]
M. de Jong: The question, quite frankly, that flows from that is similar to the one I asked a few moments ago, and that is an undertaking from the minister to determine whether or not that is also a subject of the investigation that is taking place with respect to R.S. Group Home and, if it is not, to add it as a component of that investigation. I would say further that the information I have suggests that there has been some involvement -- and I provide this as information to the minister -- of Revenue Canada and the fraud division within that agency. There may be more information that I can offer with respect to this particular facility.
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you for your comments, hon. member. Again, as in any facility, we would look at the role of the people there: what are they doing? How are they being paid? What is their role with the people in the home?
M. de Jong: I think the last point I want to address with respect to this line of questioning relates to the
I understand that as part of the arrangement that commonly exists between the contracting agent and government, there would be a clothing allowance provided separate and apart from the fee paid by the ministry to the contracting agent. That arrangement or contract would often provide for a separate clothing allowance. Is that the minister's understanding?
Hon. P. Priddy: For any child in care, there is a maintenance amount that is given to the contracted agency. That amount is to be used for clothing, for recreation, for, if you will, comforts -- it's not called comforts. It's for clothing, recreation and other things that make life a bit more livable for people. So that's correct: for our children in care, that's what happens.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
M. de Jong: I'll wrap up two questions in one here. Would it be inconsistent with ministry policy for that allowance to be withheld from the child as a means of disciplining the child? I think I know the answer to that. If that is inconsistent with ministry policy, will the minister again undertake to include that as a component of the investigation that is ongoing?
[5:00]
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, I'm not sure if there were two questions wrapped in that or not. I consider it not acceptable. That money is intended for clothing; it's intended for recreation; it's intended for other things that make life livable for that child or youth. So I do not consider it consistent in any way for it to be withheld as punishment. I also won't say to you that that may not have happened at some time. That again is one of the things in our residential standards that we will be very clear about. I mean, there may be all kinds of ways in which behaviour management happens in facilities, but it's not by withholding clothing from anybody.M. de Jong: I think
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry. I think you asked whether we would include it in the evaluation. I guess it's your standard question and my standard answer. In any facility we were examining, how the maintenance allowance had been used would also be a subject of question. It would not only be questioned of staff; we would be asking questions of people living there and their families as well.
M. de Jong: Well, I think I'm going to draw this line of questioning to a close, but there are a couple of things I want to say in conclusion.
The information that I have been provided with -- and I haven't referred to all of it by any means; I am displeased that I have it -- has been provided to me by a Mr. Ron Wright, insofar as he was involved with R.S. Group Home. I can say to the minister that he is anxious to participate actively as the individual who was charged with the task of providing care in this home.
Mr. Wright is a fairly unique individual, insofar as he acknowledges that he had no previous training whatsoever to occupy the position he did. He was offered what was in effect free room and board and told that in exchange for that he was going to look after not just kids but troubled kids. He found that unusual and did the best he could, I will say in his defence. He endeavoured to obtain training through the foster parent's plan, but he will be the first to admit that he arrived there wholly unqualified and out of his league, and did the best he could. I'm sure he will provide the minister's investigating team with the complete details of what has been going on in these two facilities. Quite frankly, if half of what Mr. Wright has to say is true, it's a bad scene.
I will urge one other thing upon the minister insofar as this investigation is considered. That is that the one document I did receive was the proposal that a Mr. Small, who I think is the contracting agent here, provided several years ago when the contract was entered into. The submissions, promises and assurances made in that document, in that proposal -- which I presume the ministry and the minister of the day found ultimately agreeable insofar as entering into the contract -- bear very little resemblance to the information I have received from one of the individuals who spent the better part of three years working there. I would urge upon the minister that she consult, insofar as this investigation is ongoing, and review that document and come to some determination about how closely it equates with what was actually taking place in those facilities.
Really, that's all I have to say, and I hope the minister understands the spirit within which those submissions have been made today.
M. Coell: I'd like to return to youth forensic psychiatric services and look at the Link program. It's a residential program for young sexual offenders, an eight-bed residential treatment program in Langley. I'd be interested to know the budget for that facility. In this particular facility I want to deal with the staff and their qualifications.
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. member, I don't know whether there's a way that you can ask your questions that is more systemic than that. Again, it's one of 12,000 contracts, and we don't have 12,000 contracts here to go through each individual one. So I don't know whether there are systemic issues linked to this program. Have a discussion with us later or send questions in writing. I just don't have the facility to do that in estimates.
M. Coell: I'm a little concerned. This is the only program for sexual offenders that I'm aware of, for residential treatment, which has an outreach component to it. It certainly must
[ Page 6444 ]
have a budget. I'm not sure whether it's run by the province or a contract facility, and what I'm concerned about is the staff and their qualifications.
Hon. P. Priddy: Well, my understanding is that that is only one of five programs in the province, I'm told, that provide a similar service. Campbell River, Terrace, Prince George and Merritt provide a similar kind of service. There may be some more systemic ones around that, if you want, but my understanding is that there are five such programs.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. The reason I ask is that these are quite often violent young sexual offenders. They're being reintroduced into the community. This is the last place they see before they're back in the community, and I'm interested in the assessment of them and the qualifications of the people doing the assessment of them.
Hon. P. Priddy: Almost all of these youth would have been in these facilities as a condition of probation. Therefore their assessment would have been done by some combination of a forensic psychologist, forensic psychiatrist, forensic social worker -- as a team. If they are on sort of an outreach or outpatient part of the program, they will be supervised by a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Most of the staff working in those facilities have either BAs or BSWs.
M. Coell: This particular program is in Langley, and there are four others in the province. What's the total number of beds available?
Hon. P. Priddy: Approximately 35, member.
M. Coell: I would presume these have 24-hour-a-day supervision, and I would presume they are staffed by qualified -- the minister said BA, BSW -- people. Are these employees of the government, or are they contracted agencies?
Hon. P. Priddy: You would be correct in assuming 24-hour care. These are contracted agencies. But in a number of circumstances, psychologists or psychiatrists may be employees of the government.
M. Coell: If they are contracted agencies, could the minister explain to me how they are supervised?
Hon. P. Priddy: They would be supervised by a contract manager who would be with forensic services, so would have experience in that area, and who would be expected to manage the contract. We had a discussion about contracts and how some are very strong and some are less so. I guess I can't speak to these in particular, because I'm not sure.
[5:15]
M. Coell: I would be interested -- and if the minister can't answer me, she could get back to me -- in having a breakdown of how they are supervised, how those contracts are managed. I think this is one of the areas -- and I know my colleague highlighted one -- where there are obviously some problems. It's an area where we have had problems -- not just this year, but for many years in the ministry -- of not being able to supervise programs. For ones like this, I think you really need to have something that is very clear and very consistent to ensure that the public is safe, as well as that the children who are involved are safe.The minister can respond in writing to that if she wishes, and I'll move on to the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre. I know this is one of which the minister is aware. I'd be interested in looking at the size of this operation and the budget, specifically looking at the number of children that use this facility in a year.
Hon. P. Priddy: The Maples has 47 places. Its budget for '97-98 is $8.5 million.
Sorry -- remind me of your additional questions. Or were there more?
M. Coell: How many?
Hon. P. Priddy: How many in a year? I'm sorry, that was your other question, was it not? It's been relatively stable, actually, over the last three or four years. For '96-97 it was 465 admissions.
M. Coell: From my recollection, the Maples serves the individuals with severe problems with the purpose of developing long-term plans. I think this fits really well into the new ministry. We were talking earlier about the youth court services. This is also an area, because I suspect that most of the people who are using the services of Maples and the Link program probably come through the courts. So with one end, if you're doing early detection and treatment and you're hooking that into other programs, this is an area that has a possibility of doing the same thing. Granted, it's at the other end. The trouble has already taken place with the courts.
I wonder whether there is a plan and a date for this particular project to be coordinated within the ministry so that it's working with the child protection workers, with the social workers. I guess what I'm interested in here, too, as well as with the youth court services, is: who will be the coordinating person? Once that plan is developed and the child is out in the community, who is going to be watching that child?
Hon. P. Priddy: I know that the member has had experience with the Maples. There has been some good coordination with the community. But I think the pieces that are important to look at
The area in which in the past there has been less success -- sometimes good success, but sometimes not -- is
I'm sorry -- you asked one more question about who will drive that. I want to check that in a minute.
But the most significant piece that seemed to be missing is that the community care plan, as good as it may have looked on paper, didn't always work when people got back, because there wasn't that kind of coordination. We think this is an excellent opportunity for that to happen now.
[ Page 6445 ]
In the community it would either be owned or driven -- whichever verb you like -- by a mental health worker or by a youth probation officer.
M. Coell: I agree with the minister. I think there is a real opportunity here for some good things to happen. One of the things is that someone has an overriding responsibility for that individual. Before there might have been six, but no one person had the ability to coordinate that. So I wish you well. I think that, plus the youth court services and some of the things we've talked about this afternoon will have some real benefits. They certainly have my support.
The family court centre is another program that provides assessment for children and families and for youth who are apprehended because of charges -- usually violence or sexual abuse charges. I'm going to admit that I know very little, if anything, about this program. I'd be interested in knowing where it functions, for starters.
Hon. P. Priddy: The family court centre is actually located at Maples, as well. I don't know if that was coincidence, in terms of where you placed it in your questioning. It is at the Maples and employs four contracted psychologists. What it does is provide -- on request from the family court -- assessments of children and their families, where a child has been apprehended by reason of allegations of sexual or physical abuse. Its budget is $164,000.
M. Coell: For my information, is this a new program, or has it been in existence for quite some time?
Hon. P. Priddy: I actually can't tell you how old it is. I have figures that go back to 1991-92, so it goes back that far.
M. Coell: If I could, I'll move to child development and rehabilitation services. I don't know whether you need new staff for that
Hon. P. Priddy: Didn't we do this already?
M. Coell: No.
Hon. P. Priddy: Wasn't it Ted?
M. Coell: Well, I have some other questions, then.
Hon. P. Priddy: Oh, so he took your time -- right?
M. Coell: Yeah. With regard to two areas -- the early intervention program and the school age therapy program -- I'm drawing on my experience from the Queen Alexandra Solarium, years gone by. For some of these, the range of services that were provided have now
Hon. P. Priddy: Some of the services that were provided at Queen Alexandra, or QA, are still there, because it belongs to the Ministry of Health. That is still where
But there are certainly still children at QA who would be there for long-term rehabilitation -- who don't need to be at the Children's, but they certainly need rehabilitation. All of that service which is provided in-house, if you will, for patients who stay there -- for children who stay there, but for patients, in this case, for the sake of clarity -- still belongs to the Ministry of Health. So the services that were provided out of QA to families in the community -- you know, the speech and language, the child development kinds of things -- all will still be provided. They'll be provided from the community, but they are all still being provided for families.
M. Coell: I guess my interest is in how that fits in the new ministry. There are definitely services provided for children that were formerly provided by, I guess, contracted agencies like QA and others throughout the province. Now, with the new ministry and health boards, I'm anxious to see how those relate to one another, how they're going to work together.
I'll try to explain that. Let's use QA as an example. The staff -- have they come into this ministry, or are we contracting with that facility? Or are we contracting through that facility with the capital health board? Or are we contracting with that facility apart from the capital health board? If it's that much of a problem, who's coordinating the individual cases for the children in the facility? That is what I'm getting at.
[5:30]
Hon. P. Priddy: Hmm. The answer I got has helped me, as well, because the capital region is different than anyplace else in the province. That's why I was having difficulty with the question, so thank you for your patience. All of the other child development centres in the province have come over to this ministry, except Pearkes, which is why we were struggling withFor whatever reason -- a different arrangement -- Pearkes is still getting its money from the Ministry of Health. I don't know; I'm sure somebody will tell me later how that arrangement came about, because all the other 38 are ours. The money is with us, and the management and all that kind of thing. It just happens that here in the capital region the G.R. Pearkes Centre -- which is your child development centre -- continues to get its money from the Ministry of Health. So Jane Cowell, who is our regional operating officer here in Victoria, is working out a bit of a different arrangement with the capital health board in terms of how to get those services to Children and Families, given that we don't have the money but we still have to make sure that services get delivered. So she's working out a somewhat more unique arrangement here than you'd see in any of the other 19 regions in the province. It will happen; it will get coordinated. It's just that for some reason, it's different here, and I'll discover why that is soon.
M. Coell: Does the minister see two sets of coordination: one for the rest of the province and one for here? Or are you trying to set it up so that the same people will be coordinating the program or plan for the youth using these services? I'm in a little bit of mixup as to how that's going to work when you look at 20 regions and you only have one that's different.
Hon. P. Priddy: I guess I have two answers, and I think they're both correct. One is longer-term and one is shorter-term. Each region is working out its own arrangements about how decisions will be made. But you're quite right that in 38 regions, we happen to control the budget.
I would actually prefer to get back to you on the Pearkes one, because it seems that most of us were unaware of that, other than one person who was standing here. I know that
[ Page 6446 ]
Jane Cowell has been working on a different way of coordinating in the capital region. I can probably do that for you by tomorrow. I would rather do that than stand here and speculate, which would be foolish.
M. Coell: I think one of the differences is that maybe the capital regional district used to have public health services, unlike the other regional districts in the province. So that went as a whole to the new capital health board. The reason I mention it is that even though they've changed it, they're going to have some problems if they're different than the rest of the province. But I'd be happy to hear back from the minister.
I'd like to move to public health, and I have a number of areas that I'd like to cover. Hearing services were developed in the health units previously. In this area, the capital regional district ran hearing services, as well as the provincial government. I guess in the rest of the province, the provincial government ran hearing services, and there were some private ones, too, I'm aware of. Have they all been rolled into the new ministry? Or are we in the same position with the capital health board with hearing services as with the Pearkes Centre?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think this is somewhat different than the earlier issue we talked about. In every region of the province, we received 80 percent of the budget for public health. So no matter what the region is, we will assume that responsibility.
M. Coell: Hearing services were delivered by different folks throughout the province. What I would like to hear from the minister is that this service is now wholly provided by this ministry and that the staff providing that will be within this ministry. What I'm looking for is: are they then coordinated with the rest of the ministry?
Hon. P. Priddy: It is much like one of the issues we spoke of earlier. We have the budget and we have the policy, but because of regionalization happening in various stages around the province -- somewhat slower in mine -- the employees you speak of are actually employees of the health boards, not of the ministry. The arrangement had been that anybody who was providing public health services would go to the regional health boards. So they wouldn't have been Ministry of Health employees anymore, either; they're regional health board employees. So that is the case with the 80 percent of the public health nurses that we have responsibility for -- both budget and policy. However, in the same way that we will be working with those same public health nurses around speech and language, early identification of issues before school, testing and so on, we will be doing that around the hearing program, as well.
M. Coell: Would I be right in assuming, then, that hearing services throughout the province are funded by this ministry, but that basically there's a contract with the 20 regional health boards throughout the province?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.
M. Coell: Hearing aids, hearing devices, are very expensive. Does the ministry have a program for subsidizing hearing aids and devices for children? I'm thinking of children in low-income families.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are subsidized.
M. Coell: If the minister could possibly get back to me in writing on that, I'd be interested to see the subsidies and how they work. I think it would be helpful to have that sort of information in MLAs' constituency offices, as well.
Would I be right in assuming that speech-language pathology is also a contract to the regional health boards? If that is the case
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct, except in two ways. As we spoke of earlier, for the public health nurse part of speech and language, that would be correct. There is still the part that child development centres deliver that is not under those circumstances; but for the public health nurses, it is. We'll go back and revisit it in a few minutes, but we actually had the numbers of children seen. As we mentioned earlier, it's a wider range seen by public health nurses than by child development centres, who tend to see children with much, much higher speech needs or children who need augmented speech -- you know, Bliss boards or sign boards or something like that. But we actually do have the numbers between public health and CDCs. We'll find them for you.
M. Coell: Might I be right in assuming that dental services are also contracted with the health boards? Or are they employees of the Ministry for Children and Families?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure; I want to check, hon. member, on whether you're talking about dental services in the broadest sense or dental services as they relate to dentists.
M. Coell: The dental services that government used to provide to schools, used to provide, I suspect, to day care centres, and a whole range of various
Hon. P. Priddy: It is the same, and there's a whole list of them. I won't read you them all, but there's a dental team that screens children and child care facilities, which is one of the ones you mentioned, and preventive dental programs and so on. It is still the same arrangement as it is for the other ones we've spoken of such as speech and language, and hearing. We have the resources, and it's contracted with the regional health boards.
M. Coell: We have the financial resources and the contract, but the staff are their staff.
[5:45]
Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct -- in the same way public health nurses and others are.Being conscious of the time and perhaps people's desire to do their five-mile run, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.