(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 7, Number 12
Part 1
[ Page 6505 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to introduce Hon. Peter G. Foss, QC, who is sitting on the floor of the House. He's the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for Western Australia. Could the House please make him welcome.
P. Nettleton: I would ask members to join me in welcoming this afternoon, Ron Timothy, here from Fort St. James. He's representing Fort St. James, and he'll be meeting with various officials from a couple of ministries this afternoon. So again, it's Ron Timothy, all the way from Fort St. James.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to be able to introduce some visitors to the gallery today: the Hon. Ian Baker, MP in the Parliament of Victoria, from Melbourne, Australia. Also in the gallery is Mr. Colin Markham, MP, and his wife Melissa. They're visiting from Sydney, Australia. Mr. Markham is a member of the New South Wales parliament in Sydney. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
R. Neufeld: Another one of those rare occasions where I get to introduce some folks from Fort St. John. A good friend of mine, Margie Radcliffe, is here visiting from Fort St. John along with her sister Mary-Anne Couillard. Along with them is their mother, from Alberta, Anna Spurgeon, and Rosemary Lenglet -- another sister -- and Betty Chisan. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Sawicki: To my colleague, Fort St. John may be a far distance away, but I'm welcoming a visitor here from Israel, Barry Bristman. Actually, Barry is no stranger to what we do in this place. Until a year ago, he was my constituency assistant, a job he did with great competence if not always humility. [Laughter.] Barry is actually completing his doctorate in international relations at the Tel Aviv University. Would the House please make him welcome.
L. Reid: There is someone in this gallery who is very near and dear to most of us, because he spent many years caring for the members of this Legislature. I would ask the House to please welcome Alistair, known more fondly to us as Red.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are three guests in the gallery today -- I'm not sure that it's a contest about how far away people are from -- that I would like to introduce and have people welcome. Mr. Mohinder Singh Gill, who for 31 years and actually until very recently has been an active Member of Parliament in the Punjab. He started his career in politics at the age of 20 and served until as recently as last February. He made many, many contributions to the parliamentary system in the Punjab. Accompanying Mr. Gill are Nirmal Walia and Ajmer Singh, who is actually from my riding. I'd ask the House to say sat sri akal and welcome.
M. de Jong: Jono Rushton is a young man who has become a good friend of mine over the past years. He's also the son of Mark Rushton, who works with us in the opposition caucus. He is here, and I hope members will make him welcome. George Peary is also in the building, at least, and I think in the gallery. He is a long-standing councillor for the city of Abbotsford. He is the chair of the regional health board, and a whole generation of students know him most affectionately as their principal and mentor. I hope members will make him welcome.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I note that in the gallery there are two friends and constituents of mine from Ladysmith. Like the member from the North Peace, I don't have people down here very often -- not because it's far away, but just because it's so great in Ladysmith that you don't need to come down here. I'd like to ask the House to help me welcome Andy and Inez McKinley.
S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Steven Greenaway. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome. I know him as a very dedicated community volunteer with the Okanagan Foundation.
H. Lali: I would also like to take this opportunity to join the hon. Minister for Children and Families in welcoming the three guests she mentioned: Mr. Mohinder Singh Gill, Mr. Nirmal Walia and Ajmer Singh. I just want to point out a couple of little facts. Mr. Gill was elected the youngest MLA, at age 27, in the Punjab. Also, at age 31 he was elected the youngest Member of Parliament in India. He was also the youngest president of the Punjab Congress Party and recently, from 1992 until '97, a Minister of Agriculture in the government of Punjab. So I too would like to join the Minister for Children and Families in welcoming our guests.
F. Gingell: I would like to welcome to the gallery today, Valerie Braunschweig. She is president of the Esquimalt-Metchosin Liberal riding association. She's president of the Credit Association of Victoria, vice-president of the Credit Association of Canada and director for the International Credit Association. She is joined today in the gallery by Mr. Michael Yarr, comptroller of the Empress Hotel, who hopes you'll all give his establishment your business. I ask you all to join me in making them both welcome.
G. Bowbrick: Often we get up and ask the House to welcome people who are responsible for our being here. Today I'd like to take that a step further and ask the House to welcome one of two people responsible for my very existence, my mother Maureen Paterson.
M. Sihota: In the gallery today is a long-time member of the Indo-Canadian community here in Victoria and on Vancouver Island who is visiting the Legislature -- and hasn't done that for several years. Joining him is his son. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Mr. Nim Sundher and Ashmir Sundher.
BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT
J. Weisbeck presented a bill intituled Boat Operators Certification Act.J. Weisbeck: This bill states: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person shall not operate a motorized recreational vessel upon the waters of the Province unless that person holds a valid boat operator's certificate." Currently, anyone of any age can get into a boat of any size and any horsepower, with absolutely no driver training, and operate that vessel. This act would place age and horsepower restrictions on those eligible for this certification.
Data collected by the Canadian Coast Guard show that between 1992 and 1995, 152 boat-related fatalities occurred in
[ Page 6506 ]
the province of British Columbia. In 1996, over 2,000 boat-related incidents and 36 fatalities were reported by the Coast Guard. Statistics have shown that those jurisdictions which have implemented mandatory certification and testing have realized a decrease of fatalities of 20 to 30 percent. This would obviously have a huge impact in giving some relief to our already overstressed health care system.
Every person who applies for boat operator certification under this act shall have successfully completed training under the guidelines of a basic boating standard which is Canadian Coast Guard approved.
The intent of this bill is to educate boat operators in this province in order to improve safety on our waters and, by doing that, to save lives.
Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[2:15]
STANDARD OF CARE
AND SECURITY AT RECOVERY HOUSES
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue around recovery houses was raised yesterday, and I took that on notice.
I want to say to the House that it is not the Attorney General ministry that funds these recovery houses. I also want to say to the House that this is the first that I'm hearing of this particular incident that the hon. member raises. Obviously the coroner's office has the obligation to look at the issue and decide whether or not to hold an inquest. If the coroner's office, within a reasonable time, decides not to hold an inquest and if the Attorney General considers it appropriate to have an inquest held, it can be ordered, and I would be so inclined at the end of the day. I want to let the process of the coroner proceed, and at the end of the day, I'll make that decision if the coroner doesn't proceed.
R. Coleman: My next question is to the Minister for Children and Families. This morning I heard of the plight of a 17-year-old girl named May. May has been staying at the Unity women's recovery house in Surrey for the past ten days. This house is run by the same people that run the Unity men's recovery house. May has left Unity because there is no food at the house for her to eat. She has now tried to get into another house, but Unity will not give back to her the two-thirds of her social assistance cheque that was signed over. She is effectively out on the street. This is a 17-year-old child that is crying for help.
Will the Minister for Children and Families, whose office has been contacted, tell us what she is doing to help this child and what she is doing to keep children out of adult recovery houses in our province?
Hon. P. Priddy: I do not have the details of the particular young woman that the member refers to, but I'm very concerned both about youth in adult homes and about the issue of unlicensed homes. We are taking some action in the ministry around the issue of unlicensed homes or beds that are out there. We make every effort. There are youth beds in our province, and we will obviously follow up on the particular information that the member has given us. We will do that as soon as question period is over.
G. Plant: Yesterday we asked why provincial government social assistance cheques were ending up in the hands of private, unlicensed drug and alcohol recovery houses run by unqualified and untrained individuals, and we learned that in one case a recovery house was being operated by an individual recently convicted of drug trafficking. Now we have learned that another recovery house, called Step by Step Recovery House, is being run by a woman who has been convicted of attempted murder, extortion, kidnapping and unlawful confinement.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources: can he tell us why this recovery house continues to receive government social assistance cheques?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to make this as clear as I can for the members opposite: the Ministry of Human Resources doesn't fund recovery homes. The Ministry of Human Resources funds individuals, and in some cases these individuals make free choices to reside or stay at what the Liberal opposition is calling "recovery homes." The mandate of this ministry doesn't include the right to inspect the accommodations of the clients of this ministry. And as well
G. Plant: We're playing the game of "find the minister" -- that is, find someone in the government who will take responsibility for this issue.
Not only is the government sending income assistance cheques to a recovery house operated by a convicted felon, but the Corrections branch is continuing to send people to that recovery house. So my question for the Attorney General is: can he explain to us why his ministry is sending criminals on probation to recovery houses run by convicted criminals?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Most of the drug and alcohol programs that the Attorney General ministry runs are in-house within the institutions.
The opposition raised the issue yesterday, and they were misleading the House yesterday. Let me say what the facts were about the issue yesterday. Mr. Tanguay, I'm advised, whose name was mentioned in the House, was charged with trafficking cocaine. As a condition of bail he was not permitted to go to Surrey. I am advised that correctional staff did not refer Mr. Tanguay to the Clean Cartel recovery program. He asked courts on his own initiative, and the courts amended the condition to allow him to go into Surrey to attend the program.
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister, I'm reluctant to interrupt, but I believe
[ Page 6507 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members! I'm trying to clarify.
Attorney, if you are answering the question that was given yesterday, I'm sorry, we can't allow that at this point. We'll have to
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the reason I'm giving this answer is because the same question was asked yesterday about a different house, about a different individual, and I
The Speaker: I'm sorry, minister; I don't think I can allow you that latitude and that discretion.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, then let me just say that I will look into this particular house that the hon. member has mentioned. I don't have at my disposal all of the information about all of the houses. But the Ministry of Attorney General, in situations where they have been paroled, doesn't have much control over where individuals choose to live unless the Parole Board attaches conditions to where they ought to be living. Parole Board is an independent, quasi-judicial function, and if the hon. member doesn't know that, perhaps we need to go back to law school.
STOCKPILING OF
MOTOR FUEL ADDITIVE (MMT)
Has the minister investigated the claims that B.C. refiners have indeed deliberately stockpiled MMT and that that octane enhancer may be used for as long as the next 24 months, based on the stockpiles that are in place?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the member -- in a limited way, however. I'm afraid I am not immediately aware of the concern that he raises in the House today. But given the information, I take very seriously what the member raises as an issue. I'll immediately look into it and see what we can do to limit the ability for that to happen.
J. Weisgerber: A supplemental. I appreciate the undertaking by the minister. The Premier was aware of this concern earlier this year. In a letter he stated: "
Will the government ensure that refiners are not allowed to circumvent the law and continue to pollute the air of British Columbia with an octane enhancer that doesn't work with new vehicles? Our government, I believe, has an obligation to make sure that doesn't happen. At the same time, we have an opportunity to promote the use of ethanol, which is a far superior additive.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. We're going beyond the question, I think.
J. Weisgerber: Would the Premier, if he wishes, respond?
Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, the rule changes are federal legislation, and so if there's some loophole in the legislation or some way that we can deal with it, we'll be happy to look into it. As the Minister of Environment said, if there's some other way the province can intervene to try to limit the ability to stockpile and therefore circumvent the federal legislation, we'll do that, as well.
As the member knows, we've had many debates -- including when he was the Minister of Energy -- where I've been a strong proponent of the use of ethanol as an additive to gasoline and the ability to reduce the emissions thereof. Of course, we know the member for Delta South shares that view.
STANDARD OF CARE
AND SECURITY AT RECOVERY HOMES
Can the Minister of Human Resources tell us if his ministry is sending welfare cheques to drug recovery houses, or is he sending welfare cheques to crack houses?
Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the script must be read. The answer to my first five or six or seven questions on this is exactly the same, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. We're going to hear the answer -- and order especially to Parksville-Qualicum and West Vancouver-Capilano.
Hon. D. Streifel: The answer hasn't changed. This ministry does not fund these homes, whether they be boarding homes or recovery homes. The participation this ministry has with recovering addicts is when an individual is in a facility that's funded by the Ministry for Children and Families. We do pay a per diem rate for those individuals if they're in need of treatment or in need of recovery. We don't refer our clients to recovery homes. Indeed, our financial assistance workers don't possess the medical expertise to diagnose and recommend treatment. We fund people; we don't fund homes.
B. McKinnon: This minister says that he may not fund homes, but he does send out the cheques. Christine Eden of Surrey said that she told the minister's office that the recovery house was no longer located at that address. Nevertheless, 15 pieces of mail arrived from Social Services, many of them welfare cheques.
Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us whether his ministry has launched an investigation into welfare fraud at these fly-by-night recovery houses?
[ Page 6508 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: If the member opposite has evidence that there is fraud being perpetrated on the ministry, she has an obligation to bring it forward, within or without question
Interjections.
Hon. D. Streifel: Bark, bark, bark.
Hon. Speaker, clients of this ministry choose to live in various places. It's not the ministry's mandate to inspect the accommodations that our clients choose. If this happens to be their mailing address, I would expect that in some way or another
[2:30]
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
FOR B.C. TRANSIT CHAIR
Can the minister tell us why on earth the now-deposed part-time Transit chair, Derek Corrigan, would need a $65,000 executive assistant?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The answer I gave in estimates is accurate and stands.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
The Speaker: No leave is required. Please proceed.
B. Penner: It is my pleasure to table what may be the largest petition of this session. It's a petition signed by 14,081 residents of the Upper Fraser Valley, indicating their opposition to any move by the NDP government to close the Chilliwack courthouse.
G. Wilson: I rise to table a petition. This petition has 2,012 signatures. It is a petition to the government, respectfully requesting the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to retain the current moratorium on salmon aquaculture development until such time as new regulations are in place.
G. Brewin: On behalf of the Speaker, I wish to table a petition from a number of constituents who live in Nanaimo. It's on Bill C-68, a federal act respecting firearms and other weapons.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I move the report be adopted. It deals entirely with the issues of the disposal and retention of government documents, and I commend it to members of the Legislature to read.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have the pleasure to submit the fiscal 1995-96 annual reports of the Ministry of Labour.
FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(continued)
On section 78 as amended (continued).
T. Nebbeling: When we finished the morning session, we were talking about the economic test. I'd like the minister to give me a kind of overview on how the district manager looks at the plan and then considers this economic value. What will bring the minister to a level that he is satisfied that indeed the issue has been adequately addressed?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under this provision, there will be regulations that need to be brought in. It's section 125 of this bill.
Let me give you an example. Under the jobs and timber accord, there's a commitment to provide more wood ahead in approved cutting permits. Section 41(1)(c) would justify bringing an area forward that would not have been developed right away by reducing visual restrictions, for example, in the area while still adequately managing and conserving forest resources for the area. It would be the conditions under which you could bring in a higher-level plan, a landscape plan or a particular development plan that rearranges the priorities in the area.
T. Nebbeling: This whole economic test, I believe, was added to the process to give communities a sense of being
[ Page 6509 ]
incorporated in the assessment of a land mass that is for harvesting pulp. In that sense, it is a very positive move. However, can this particular section then also actually be used by the district managers to come to the conclusion that a certain cut should not happen because the other values that apply to that land's higher-level plan would actually reduce an amount of timber from an area, making it financially less productive or financially less viable? Is that the other side of the coin, as well, when it comes to this consideration?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it could, theoretically. But the whole idea of putting in an economic test would mean that you can't recommend helicopter logging if it's not viable; you can't recommend selection logging if it's not viable -- even clearcutting, for that matter. So there has to be consideration of a broad range of economic issues.
I think it would be a case of the district manager having to show judgment as to the balance of provincial economic interests in an area. While it could cut both ways in practice, other economic values often are protected by not logging. In this case, it's trying to find a way that you can protect logging and not do undue damage to other economic values at the same time. In particular, there will be a balance within economic values but also between economic values and the values of conserving the forest resource.
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the answers from the minister. After all, it is the district manager who will ultimately make the decision. From time to time we see decisions made by district managers where we question what is behind the decision. It could indeed be used the wrong way, and I don't think there is anything we can do to stop that from happening in the future. I hope that it will not, but the way the section is written, it will certainly allow that.
Having said that, one more question. I tried to get the answer this morning, and I don't believe the minister gave it to me: that is, the potential conflict between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment when it comes to the final adoption or approval of a plan. Who, in the end, will have the jurisdiction to overrule the other party? Is it the environmental officer, or is it the district manager? Or is there a third party that would be petitioned?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be assistance sought if they can't resolve it, but there is an agreement that they do resolve it. The legal power is in the hands of the district manager and the designated environmental officer. That tension is put into the approvals, particularly in the sensitive areas, to end with a resolution that does balance those interests. So the legal power is at the district level, but they can get assistance to mediate at higher levels.
Section 78 as amended approved.
Section 79 approved.
On section 80.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 80 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 80, in the proposed section 43 (1) (c) by deleting "materially changes" and substituting "does not materially change".]Amendment approved.
Section 80 as amended approved.
On section 81.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 81 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 81, in the proposed section 45 (2) (a) (i) by striking out "48.1," and substituting "48.1".]Amendment approved.
Section 81 as amended approved.
Section 82 approved.
On section 83.
T. Nebbeling: The disturbance of soil in the forest during harvesting periods has been very contentious, as the minister is well aware. This often led to forest workers not being able to go into the forest. Up to now, I believe, the code has been quite specific as to what type of soil erosion could happen during certain periods of the year. When the imprint of a tire was more than an inch, for example, the operation had to stop. We had to wait for drier weather to avoid this kind of impression in the land. That's just one example.
With this particular section, there isn't latitude given to anybody. First of all, who would be responsible for approving the erosion or -- maybe a better word -- the soil disturbance? Who would approve the soil disturbance to exceed a certain limit? What kind of guidelines are there to be used, or is it purely a judgment call?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be the district manager that approves the level of soil disturbance in the silviculture plan, and he would approve it only if it can be rehabilitated.
T. Nebbeling: If there's an expectation that indeed soil disturbance will happen and a certain level will be acceptable, the only way that we can make sure that the level of disturbance that has been approved by the district manager is not excessive would be through strict enforcement and monitoring. Is this particular section not going to be a trouble creator? It will be almost impossible to have somebody on site permanently to make sure that soil disturbance doesn't exceed the permitted depth or exceed the limits as set. What would happen if an operation is in full swing, some soil disturbance does happen and a forest officer comes by and sees that the level has exceeded the allowed level? Would that mean the operation would be shut down again? Is this not going to be very complicated and labour-intensive from a monitoring perspective? Or is the right question: can this actually be enforced on this basis?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no substantive change as a result of this section. I'm told that we haven't had a problem to date. I would just get on the record that as the logging plan will no longer be required in most circumstances, the reason this is here is because the section needed to be redrafted to eliminate references to the logging plans.
Sections 83 and 84 approved.
On section 85.
[ Page 6510 ]
T. Nebbeling: A quick clarification on the wording "exceptional circumstances." Can the minister give me an idea of what would be an exceptional circumstance in this particular section?
[2:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The exceptions would be, typically, a licence to cut -- which you know is a minor amendment -- and some road permits.Sections 85 to 90 inclusive approved.
On section 91.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 91 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 91, in the proposed section 63 (6) by deleting everything after "Section 63 (6) is amended by striking out" and substituting " "a forest development plan or an access management plan." and substituting "a forest development plan.".".]Amendment approved.
Section 91 as amended approved.
Section 92 approved.
On section 93.
T. Nebbeling: This is a section which I should really have asked for a technical briefing on because I don't get it. Can the minister give me a quick run over what exactly the intent is of this section, especially on the last part -- the setting of the limit on excavated and bladed trails.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These amendments are consequential to the changes in the silviculture prescription provisions. As you know, they'll make the prescription more results-oriented and less concerned about the methods to achieve the results. This is the part of the ministry initiative to reduce the administrative burden, and it's supported by industry and the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters.
Sections 93 and 94 approved.
On section 95.
T. Nebbeling: Here again is one of these situations where I do not have an answer on how, ultimately, under this section the silviculture activities in backlog areas
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Subsection (3.1) would ensure that those undertaking backlog silviculture work are only liable as long as the required work is funded by Forest Renewal B.C. If Forest Renewal does not continue to fund the contractor for work, then the government is liable for establishing the free-growing stand. So your question was: what if the contractor doesn't do its job? Then FRBC would be. So there is going to be some requirement there to qualify the contractors. I'm not sure whether there is a bonding requirement, but the normal business practices would be entered into. I'm not aware that it is a problem, but the final responsibility rests with FRBC, and if not with them, if they're no longer funding, then it would fall to government.
T. Nebbeling: Let's quickly go through what's happening here. Here's a backlog area that will be seeing some silviculture activities. There is an agreement made by FRBC to fund the contractor to do the work. For some reason, the contractor cannot fulfil its mandate of bringing it to a free-growing stand, in part because an agreement ends, although the agreement was obviously to bring it to that free-growing stand. Then, when the contractor somehow gets his agreement cancelled, or it is no longer there, the government becomes responsible financially to bring in the team that will bring it to that free-growing stand. I believe that when the government says, "We the government will be responsible," it is saying Forest Renewal B.C. So Forest Renewal B.C. funds, cancels the contract and then funds again. I don't see logic in this section because of that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps this explanation would make it a little easier. Subsection (3.2) allows government to require FRBC to pay for this work if the obligation is assumed by government. But if there is a default by a contractor, we would take their security deposit, which would cover any damages.
Sections 95 and 96 approved.
On section 97.
J. Wilson: I take it that any changes to a silviculture prescription that would be presented by a district manager on a woodlot here would only apply to Forest Renewal projects. Would there be any exceptions?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me explain this section. This amendment is needed to deliver the new FRBC delivery model. At present the district manager is responsible for carrying out brushing treatments on restocked but not free-growing areas which were harvested prior to '87. Under the new Forest Renewal delivery model, Forest Renewal will contract directly with the licensees to do this work. This amendment makes sure that in carrying out these treatments, Forest Renewal does so in accordance with the code and with the district manager's discretion.
T. Nebbeling: One quick question on this one. I get a feeling that in a sense the approval for this work
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This doesn't have anything to do with the licence. It has to do with the FRBC work on the licensed area. Any time a district manager may decide that a treatment is desirable and needs to be done, in which case FRBC would be approached for the funding
Sections 97 to 99 inclusive approved.
On section 100.
[ Page 6511 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 100 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 100, by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (f) and by deleting the proposed section 96 (1) (g) and substituting the following:Amendment approved.(g) by the regulations, in the course of carrying out activities
(i) under a range use plan or a consent under section 101 or 102,(ii) under a silviculture prescription for a backlog area or a stand management prescription,
(iii) under an approval of the district manager under section 48.1 or 71.1, or
(iv) under an agreement described in section 64 (1.1).]
Section 100 as amended approved.
On section 101.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 101 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 101 (a), in the proposed section 101 (1) (b) by deleting ", and".J. Wilson: I had a question on section 100, section 96; it's under (1)(b). Does this mean that no one can do anything to standing timber on Crown-granted land when this comes into effect?SECTION 101 (b), by deleting the proposed section 101 (1.1) and (1.2) and substituting the following:
(1.1)
The district manager may (a) require a person seeking consent under subsection (1) to submit the matter for which consent is sought to a review in accordance with the regulations, and for comments by interested parties during the course of the review,(1.11) The district manager may only grant a consent under this section if(b) grant or refuse the consent, depending on the outcome of a review required under paragraph (a), and
(c) impose requirements, that the district manager considers necessary or desirable, to be met by the person seeking the consent as a condition of obtaining or retaining the consent, including, but not limited to, requiring that the person provide security.
(a) the consent is consistent with any operational plans and higher level plans in effect for the area covered by the consent, and(1.12) If the district manager requires security under subsection (1.1) (c), the district manager must specify(b) the district manager is satisfied that the consent will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies.
(a) when the security must be paid,(1.2) A person who obtains consent under subsection (1) must comply with any conditions imposed under subsection (1.1) in respect of the consent. , and(b) the amount of security that is required,
(c) the form of the security, and
(d) the circumstances under which the security may be realized.
(c) in subsection (2) by striking out "subsection (1)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (1.2)".]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, (1)(b)
J. Wilson: Am I to understand, then, that if someone wished to take some timber that is on a piece of Crown-granted land and construct a building, some fence or whatever, they would require permission from the minister before they could proceed with any work?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Only if the Crown grant didn't grant the timber.
Amendment approved.
Section 101 as amended approved.
J. Wilson: In section 101, could the minister explain
The Chair: Member, we have passed section 101. We are on section 102.
J. Wilson: Oh, I'm sorry; I'm behind here, then. I was of the understanding that we were on 100, and then we went to 101.
The Chair: If you have a question, go ahead and ask the question.
J. Wilson: In 101(1.1), could the minister explain this paragraph to me?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This new subsection enables the district manager to require a person seeking consent under section 101 to make the request available for review and comment and impose other requirements on the consent, such as providing security. Depending on the outcome of the review, the district manager may grant or refuse to grant the consent.
Sections 102 to 104 inclusive approved.
On section 105.
T. Nebbeling: My first question to the minister on this one is related to the words that appear in this section quite often, and that is "due diligence." Can the minister give me the definition of due diligence?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The common definition is all reasonable care, considering the circumstances. It can be defined in regulation but is commonly defined in the courts.
T. Nebbeling: The reason I'm asking that simple question is based on section 105, section 116.4(2), where the act actually states clearly what I find quite surprising: "The onus of proving due diligence is on the person who is the subject of the performance evaluation
[3:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, due diligence is a defence, and this act, like other acts, is required by the courts to have the person using the defence prove it.T. Nebbeling: Well, I don't want to argue, but to me, due diligence is not
[ Page 6512 ]
due diligence, and you could say: "Okay, this is due diligence. If you go that way, you're working within due diligence; if you go over
The vagueness
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the point of these amendments is to allow due diligence as a defence. If they've done all reasonable things that are required by common industry standards, then they can't be found to be at fault. I could give an example. If it's required that you take a soil sample before you build the road or that you do some stream measurements before you classify the stream, then those would be things that would have to be done. I can think of other examples. You might want to lay out a road and let it freeze if you're working on difficult soils; let it freeze for a couple of days before you run on it. There could be any number of things.
I don't think industry has any problem with defining due diligence. I think there's a common understanding about what these practices are. I mean, I'm sure people will dispute whether someone is duly diligent or not, but I don't believe there is a problem either from the contractors that I've spoken to or the associations we've consulted with about due diligence being a defence, because the court can have standards of practice presented, and those are generally accepted by the courts as the standards.
Section 105 approved.
On section 106.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 106 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 106,Amendment approved.(a) in the proposed section 117 (2) (a) by adding "or convictions" after "previous contraventions", and
(b) in the proposed section 117.3 (4) (a), (b) and (c), by deleting "Forest Appeals Commission" and substituting "commission".]
Section 106 as amended approved.
On section 107.
T. Nebbeling: Can the minister quickly explain what this section replaces in wording? I could not find any reason for the section, in the way it has been phrased and what it has substituted.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Legislative counsel advised that we write the legislation this way so that the remediation orders can be put against the licensee as the responsible party. Even if the problem was created by a contractor, it's still the licensee's responsibility. It's written for legal clarity.
Sections 107 to 112 inclusive approved.
On section 113.
T. Nebbeling: A quick question to the minister, based on a little bit of a dispute we had earlier on when we were talking about a review requested in written form, or just a review requested. Here again is one of these situations. Section 113, paragraph (a)(2) reads: "The person must ensure that the request for review complies with the content requirements of the regulations." Again, I do not understand why any request for review or consideration is not done in writing so that it is proof that the request has been made, especially because in these cases there is a time limit for requesting either a review or information. So it is housekeeping, but I don't understand why "written" is left out of it.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The legal advice is to keep the details in regulation as much as possible, so if we need to respond to a new circumstance we can. Whereas if it's in the legislation, we have to wait for the legislative session and then for more regulations to be passed.
Sections 113 and 114 approved.
On section 115.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 115 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 115, in the proposed section 130 (1) and (2) by deleting "Forest Appeals Commission" and substituting "commission".]Amendment approved.
Section 115 as amended approved.
Sections 116 to 122 inclusive approved.
On section 123.
J. Wilson: Would the minister explain the difference between subsections (c), (d) and (e) in this section?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You may want to refer again to some specific subsections, but this section allows FRBC to pay for certain functions that are listed in here. It says that if you have an obligation under your licence, then the licensee has to pay. But this section allows for FRBC to do certain things.
J. Wilson: I realize it is FRBC-funded. I would like to know if there is a difference between road construction or modification with regard to silviculture and road maintenance under section 63(7) of the act. There is a difference there, I believe, and then in section 123(3)(e) we have road deactivation. Is this funding for the deactivation of the roads after they have been constructed or modified under section 123(3)(c) when the project is finished? Is that how that reads?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. It applies to different FRBC-funded road activities. It might be deactivation as part of a watershed restoration or: "(c) road construction or modification under a special use permit
[ Page 6513 ]
Sections 123 to 125 inclusive approved.
On section 126.
J. Wilson: I take it that any requirements or restrictions that would be imposed on a woodlot licence would be incorporated in their five-year management plan. Or would they be an addition to the existing plan? Or would they have come on at the renewal point of the plan? How does this affect the plan as it exists today?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is the intention that existing plans would live out their useful life. But if they were for some reason not useful anymore, then I'm sure the district manager could consider working on some kind of streamlining of the development plan. As you know, this section is there to eliminate the hierarchy of plans, so in the normal course of events it would be upon renewal of any of the plans.
[3:15]
J. Wilson: There is a substantial cost related to repairing a plan. Would the cost of any adjustment or changes to a management plan that's in place be picked up through Forest Renewal? Or would it be left up to the woodlot owner to carry that additional cost?Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole idea was to streamline a number of plans. In fact, what will happen is that there will be a regulation which requires woodlot licence holders to not have to prepare a forest development plan and silviculture prescription. So there will be no additional cost. If they choose to redo a plan, for example, because they want to change the management, then they would have to bear the responsibility. But nothing in here requires them to do more planning than they had in place. In other words, the plans that exist can run out. When the next cycle comes up, the new regulation will kick in.
Sections 126 to 130 inclusive approved.
Section 131 negatived.
Sections 132 to 135 inclusive approved.
On section 136.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to section 136 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 136,Amendment approved.(a) in the proposed section 247 (1) by adding "or the silviculture prescription is replaced under this Act or the regulations" after "under the silviculture prescription",
(b) in the proposed section 247 (2) by adding "and to an amendment to that silviculture prescription" after "district manager before the date this section comes into force", and
(c) in the proposed section 248 (1) (b) by adding the following:
(vii) carrying out, constructing, modifying or maintaining a range development.]
On section 136 as amended.
J. Wilson: Could the minister explain No. 4 in this section?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no No. 4 in section 136.
Section 136 as amended approved.
Sections 137 to 139 inclusive approved.
On section 140.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to section 140 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 140, in the proposed section 18 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 159, as amended by the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 1997,Amendment approved.(a) subsection (4.1) is amended by adding "approximate" after "this section must identify the", and
(b) subsection (4.2) is amended by adding "approximate" after "the plan must identify the".]
Section 140 as amended approved.
On section 141.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 141 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 141(b), in the proposed subsection (1.2) is amended by adding "approximate" after "or woodlot licence must identify the".]Amendment approved.
Section 141 as amended approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment that adds section 141.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 141.1, by adding the following section:Section 141.1 approved.141.1 Section 42 (2) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 159 as amended by the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, is repealed and the following substituted:
(2) If the district manager approves a forest development plan or amendment under subsection (1), the district manager may immediately approve a silviculture prescription or amendment if the district manager determines that
(a) the prescription or amendment complies with the regulations and the standards, and(b) the timber on the area under prescription should be harvested without delay because it is in danger of being damaged, significantly reduced in value, lost or destroyed.]
Sections 142 to 153 inclusive approved.
On section 154.
J. Wilson: In section 154 -- it's to deal with Evans Forest Products -- we have sections (1) and (2). They're identical except for the dates on the commencement years. One is January 30, 1996, and one is December 17, 1996. Could the minister explain what's involved here?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple explanation for the dates is that these are the dates that were involved when the minister gave transfer to the particular licences here. This gives effect to an action under section 56 of the act that says when a timber
[ Page 6514 ]
licence is transferred, the holder of the licence must pay the government 5 percent of the declared value of the timber licence or 5 percent of the appraised value of the licence. One of the conditions of both economic plans for Evans was that the government waive the requirements of section 56. This provision is required to fulfil this commitment retroactively.
Sections 154 to 157 inclusive approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment that adds section 157.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 157.1, by adding the following section:Section 157.1 approved.157.1 Despite section 10 (1) (d) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, a forest development plan that is submitted for the district manager's approval or given effect by the district manager on or before October 15, 1997 must meet the requirements of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the regulations and standards made under that Act that were in effect on June 15, 1997.]
On section 158.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendments to section 158 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 158,Amendment approved.(a) section 158 (1) (b) and (d) is deleted and the following substituted:
(b) sections 2, 10, 12, 18 to 20, 26, 27, 27.1, 28 to 39, 43 (a), (d) to (g), (l) and (n), 44, 45 to 48, 49 (b) and 50;(b) section 158 (3) and (6) is deleted and the following substituted:(b.1) that part of section 53 that adds section 10 (4) and (5) to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act;
(b.2) sections 54 (a), 55 (a), 62 to 64, 65 (c) and (d), 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83 to 85, 90, 92, 93 (a), 94 (b) and (c), 95 (d) and (e), 96 to 98, 100, 105 to 118, 119 (a) and 123 to 128;
(d) sections 138 (b), 139, 141.1, 142, 143, 144 (a) and (c), 145, 146, 147 (b), 151 (d) and (e), 153, 155 and 157. , and
(3) Sections 27.1 and 130 are deemed to have come into force on April 21, 1997 and are retroactive to the extent necessary to give them effect on and after that date.
(6) The following come into force on January 5, 1998:
(a) sections 22 (a), 23 to 25, 58, 69, 79 (a), 82, 88, 89 (a) and 91;(b) that part of section 132 that repeals section 236 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act;
(c) that part of section 136 enacting Division 7 of Part 11;
(d) sections 138 (a), 140, 141 and 144 (b).]
Section 158 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 47, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 47, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I'd like to make a couple of motions, if I could, please.
Leave granted.
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Committee be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, pursuant to section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
[ Page 6515 ]
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The said Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. Janssen -- Convener, Sihota, Stevenson and Waddell; Mesdames Brewin and Walsh; Messrs. Plant, Abbott and Weisbeck; and Ms. Whittred.
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Police Complaints Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to section 47 of the Police Act, 1997, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The said Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. Giesbrecht -- Convener, Orcherton, Calendino and Randall; Mesdames Brewin, Sawicki and Smallwood; Messrs. Plant, Coell and Coleman; and Ms. Reid and Mr. Weisgerber.
Leave granted.
Motion approved
[3:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that Mr. Mike de Jong, MLA, be substituted for Mr. Dan Jarvis, and Mr. Rick Kasper be substituted for Mr. Moe Sihota, as members on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 48.
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATIONS ACT
On section 1.
G. Plant: I will wait just a moment, because I suspect there are staff coming to assist the minister.
There are a number of questions with respect to the establishment of the emergency communications service, which I gather is already to be known by the name E-Comm. Some of these questions are relatively general in nature, and I intend to ask them under the umbrella of section 1, the definitions section. I will certainly endeavour not to turn this into an estimates debate, but I think this does mark a significant occasion, on which the government is coming before the House to enable the creation of this new entity which is potentially going to play a significant role in the lives of people in at least southwestern British Columbia. So I hope the Attorney General will grant me just a bit of leeway here.
The definitions include a definition of emergency communications corporation. I suppose there are two questions here, at least. First of all, has the corporation, which will serve as the organization for southwestern British Columbia, already, in fact, been established, or is its establishment awaiting passage of this act? I'll deal with that one first.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's awaiting the passage of this legislation.
G. Plant: The bill carefully uses the plural of corporation, and obviously contemplates the possibility that there will be created, in the fullness of time, more than one emergency communications corporation. I know of one that is planned and well underway -- the one for southwestern British Columbia, which I think will be called E-Comm. Does the government have any plans to create corporations for this purpose anywhere else in British Columbia at this point?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no other plans in any other region, except that I can advise the hon. member that southern Vancouver Island is considering the creation of such a corporation. The impetus for this came from the municipality. The one we're dealing with now in southwestern British Columbia came essentially from the city of Vancouver and other areas. There might be some movement in that direction on Vancouver Island as well, and that's why the plural is used. This is enabling legislation that would allow regions to group themselves for the purposes of providing these services under the umbrella of a corporation.
G. Plant: For the time being, though, the only one that's in concrete form -- if I can put it that way -- is the one in southwestern British Columbia. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I suppose that in the largest possible use of the term, what we're talking about is a corporation that will in effect be a form of partnership among a number of different service agencies in a number of different communities. I have seen published an indication of the agencies that are already on board for the one in the lower mainland.
[ Page 6516 ]
As I understand it, this includes the city of Vancouver fire and police, the RCMP and agencies within the GVRD. I believe it also includes the ambulance service for at least the lower mainland, but it does not yet include Surrey, Burnaby or Port Coquitlam. I may be out of date on this, and if I am, then I'm sure the minister will correct me. If I'm not, could the minister explain from his perspective how he sees overcoming what looks to me like an obstacle in terms of the non-participation of three significant municipalities?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With Surrey, Burnaby and Port Coquitlam councils not fully agreeing to participate in this, it obviously does raise some issues. These three jurisdictions are all policed, however, by the RCMP, and the RCMP are a part of the wide-area radio network. The RCMP would, in a sense, therefore be participating from those three jurisdictions in the communications centre.
I understand that Port Coquitlam council has yet to consider the issue, and they may decide to participate. They know that the RCMP would be participating. Surrey, as the hon. member knows, is quite vocal in its position of not wanting to participate, and I appreciate that. I'm not particularly sure where the Burnaby council is at. They haven't made a decision as yet.
I have said very clearly that I want to persuade all these entities to participate fully. It is in the best interests of all the people in the lower mainland and in southwestern British Columbia that we have an integrated dispatch system and coordinated fire, ambulance and police dispatch as well as a wide-area radio network.
As the hon. member knows, this legislation does not contain a provision whereby the Attorney General can force an entity to participate. That provision, I can tell the hon. member, was included in this legislation. We took it out because we want to make sure that we allow municipalities and entities to decide on their own to participate, and because at the end of the day, it's the right thing to do.
If, however -- and I have said this publicly -- a year or two down the road, it appears that we need to have a municipality that may not be participating actually participate in this for the good of all, obviously the Legislature has the discretion at that point to bring the provision back in and include it. I would hope that we don't have to do that, because voluntary participation is what really makes it work wonderfully. I would hope that His Worship, the mayor of Surrey, is listening to us and that he listens to us carefully and changes his mind.
The Chair: I'll remind the hon. member that we had the debate in second reading, and we are now in committee on section 1.
G. Plant: Yes, I was going to say in response to what the Attorney General just said that I wonder if anyone is listening to us, but I'm sure if anyone is, the mayor of Surrey will be.
Interjection.
G. Plant: No, as the saying goes, I think we won't go down that road.
For the benefit of the hon. Chair, we're here debating, among other things, the content and the definition of the emergency services agency, so that's where the hon. Chair can hang the hat of relevance if she is worried.
I want to pursue one step further the consequences for service delivery if, for example, Surrey does not come on board. If we have the ambulance service in, we have it in as a provincial entity. If we have the RCMP in, then we have the RCMP in, as the minister indicates, for Surrey. We would not have the fire department, I take it, and essentially that would be the major omission.
The issue then arises of how a coordinated dispatch service would work with those gaps in it. Rather than having a long technical discussion, I take it that the short answer is that it wouldn't work as well as it could, and that's why it's important that the thing be set up in a way that encourages everyone to get on board. Is that a fairly accurate summary?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is. I think that the citizens of entities such as Surrey need to know that this is not simply an E-Comm for dispatch, the wide-area network and the like. There are also the backup facilities so that in times of disaster, you would have the ability, which would survive that disaster, to coordinate these services across this region. This is going to be a fairly expensive state-of-the-art facility for the region, and I think it's important for all of us to participate in it.
G. Plant: I'm looking again at the definitions. Am I correct in my understanding that the emergency response aspect, at least, of the provincial emergency program will be rolled into this in southwestern British Columbia? Will the offices of the provincial emergency program be moved into the building that is being constructed in Vancouver? Is that where the program will operate out of for at least southwest Vancouver?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, for the southwest region.
G. Plant: I'm sorry. I said southwest Vancouver, but I meant southwest British Columbia -- the area that goes at least up to Pemberton or Sechelt and out as far as Hope, I think, if not all the way up to Boston Bar.
The definition of an emergency services agency includes organizations operating fire departments. As I read some of the material I've seen, around the composition of the board of this corporation, it doesn't appear that there is any specific spot on the board set aside for fire departments. Is there a rationale for that that the minister could share with us?
[3:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: They are not represented on the board. The municipalities would be represented on the board, therefore you have the indirect representation of the fire department for each of the municipalities. But the user committees or user groups that would be advising the board would be represented.G. Plant: One other question about section 1, if I may. The term "members' agreement" is really a jumping-off point for the question. I have seen a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Health and the city of Vancouver, which I think is the means by which the ambulance service becomes part of this undertaking. The way that the term members' agreement is defined, it contemplates a number of different agreements, and I foresee the possibility that there may be a number of different overlapping agreements between different service providers undertaking different obligations with respect to each other. Obviously, part of the context is that some of these services are -- and I don't know if this is the right way to put it -- surrendering some of the autonomy they now have over decision-making in respect of
[ Page 6517 ]
how they provide their services, and they are surrendering it in the interests of obtaining a much more efficient, effective, up-to-date service that will serve their needs as well as the needs of others.
I hope it is the intention to eventually create a sort of master agreement that all of the participants in this undertaking will subscribe to so that there isn't any risk of conflicting obligations.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This provision does envisage, essentially, a master agreement, maybe with variations for each participant on some minor issues. Essentially what's anticipated is that there would be one agreement. Within the context of that agreement, as the participants enter, there might be variations as to their participation. But the general terms would apply to everyone. That's the understanding that I have.
G. Plant: I omitted one more question I had about section 1. Section 1 defines as a government agency -- includes in that definition -- federal government agencies. I can think, for example, of the Coast Guard. There are federal government emergency response organizations that would come into play in some cases in the lower mainland in southwestern British Columbia. Perhaps I could get a brief progress report on whether or not it's expected to try and bring some of these organizations into the corporation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Currently only the RCMP is; we're anticipating only the RCMP. That is a federal agency that would participate. But Coast Guard has expressed some interest, and they may be participating in the future.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
G. Plant: Two questions here; the first is the way that the purposes are set out. It talks about the corporation having as its primary purpose the provision of services to its members, but also allows the corporation to have the purpose of providing similar services to people or entities that are not its members. So this would be a way of, I suppose, dealing with recalcitrant municipalities, at least for the purpose of defining the corporate powers and objects. I wonder if that's what the section is intended to do. I invite the minister to tell me that.
Well, there are three questions. Secondly, what is it that the government envisages as being the other purposes that might be prescribed by regulation in the meaning of this section?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 3(2) is permissive. Obviously it would allow us to allow the corporation to service, for instance, the fire dispatch. If Surrey, without entering into a larger agreement, is wanting to only have the fire dispatch, it may allow us to do that. I'm not very technically oriented here, but I think it's meant for that.
Section 3(2)(b) is, I believe, simply an anticipation of any service that may develop -- something new that we may not anticipate today that we may need to include in future. I can't think of any other service currently being provided that would need to be grouped under a corporation such as this, but there might be one in the future. This simply takes care of any eventuality.
G. Plant: The question here is: how is this thing going to be paid for? I assume that the intention is to have the members participate in, among other things, cost-sharing arrangements. Therefore collectively they will all be responsible for
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there has been a cost-sharing formula arrived at amongst the anticipated members of this corporation. I don't have the details. It has been ratified by those who are at least going to be participating in this.
G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could advise me whether that document and related documents around corporate structure, governance, business plans and so on would be available to members of the opposition in a briefing, if that should be asked for in the next little while.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that should be available. This is obviously a corporation pursuant to government statute, and information should be available.
G. Plant: One other issue I am going to put under this place, although it's a more general one, is an issue that has been brought to my attention by some people who are watching this and who recognize, I think, that there is great strength in having an integrated dispatch service -- one number you can call anywhere in southwestern British Columbia and get help for whatever the emergency is. But they are also at least alive to the fact that the person at the other end of that telephone is somebody who needs to have a wide range of experience in order to deal with the wide range of issues that may come before them down the line on the telephone.
So we have here a corporation that has, as its primary purpose, an obligation to provide emergency communications and related services to its members and will, in the course of that, hopefully, create a service that is accessible to all people who live in southwestern British Columbia. I ask that the Attorney General, as he and his ministry play their part in the design of that, ensure that they are mindful of the need to properly train the front-line service providers to ensure that they can deal with fire issues, police issues, health issues -- all of those kinds of issues.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this structure is designed to have appropriately trained personnel dispatch in their area of expertise, and then some cross-training is going to be available. I understand that those plans are in place. The province has been participating in this venture right from the beginning. As services such as the RCMP, ambulance, other police forces and fire services participate, I'm sure they will make their training needs known. That would drive the need for cross-training -- if it is required any further than what's anticipated at this time. A centralized dispatch service obviously makes it easier to have that kind of cross-training available.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Plant: There are some special corporate rules enacted here. I note section 5(2), which makes reference to section 117 of the Company Act and then speaks about the respon-
[ Page 6518 ]
sibilities of the directors of one of these emergency communication corporations. I have to admit that when I got section 117(1) of the Company Act and looked at what it says, I had no idea what it was that the author of this intended by creating what looks like a bit of a corporate override.
If the minister would like, I can read 117(1) of the Company Act, because it's not that long. Under the heading of "Powers and functions of directors," this is what it says: "Subject to this act and the articles of the company, the directors must manage or supervise the management of the affairs and business of the company." So that's it. Here we have: "
[4:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is more specifically to deal with the independence of policing so that the directors do not interfere in the independence of policing. Also, of course, this corporation doesn't have a memorandum of articles; it has this statute of government.G. Plant: I think the latter is self-evident and not all that to the point, but the former observation is interesting. I just hope that the directors don't end up sitting around the table asking themselves what the difference is between supervising the general management of the corporation, on the one hand, and managing or supervising the management of the company. At any rate, that will be their happy chore.
I have a second issue with section 5. The last subsection creates a requirement that the corporation provide a copy of an annual financial statement and an auditor's report to the minister. Will this be a public document? It's not quite the same as an annual report.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it will be a public document.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Plant: I gather that the intention is that all of the existing radio licences that the member organizations now have will be rolled into the corporation; but, of course, to some extent that depends of federal regulatory approval. The goal is to achieve that purpose, subject to the applicable federal rules. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is true. I understand that the federal government actually supports that.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: This is a section about borrowing. The question is: how much of the project
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that, yes, currently the plan is to borrow substantially all of the money for building purposes.
G. Plant: How will that borrowing then manifest itself on the books of the province? We're not talking about an agency.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that would be reflected on the books of the province. This is a corporation which is under a statute but is still a private-public corporation -- if I can use that term.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Plant: I suppose corporate model theorists might be interested in the distinction that exists between section 8 and section 9. Section 8 and the discussion we have just had emphasizes the separateness of the corporation. Section 9 appears to make this corporation essentially a flow-through entity for the purposes of freedom of information requests. Is that a fairly accurate statement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's true. The hon. member appreciates that this is despite the fact that the corporation may be raising money on its own to build for operational purposes. All of these services are public services, and that's why it's important for us to have that openness.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
G. Plant: This section creates an immunity for certain people defined as "protected persons." Perhaps I could cover off the issue this way. Does this expand the zone of immunity beyond that which would currently exist for all those individuals who now provide the services that will be brought under this umbrella?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is consistent with the current law.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
G. Plant: At the risk of being facetious -- which I don't want to be -- I'm tempted to say that I wish the government well in sorting out successorship. This organization is bringing together all these different agencies, with some to come in sequentially. That is, there will be a core group to start with, and I assume, over time, that perhaps others will come in. Organizing the bargaining unit for this new agency will, I am sure, be a challenge for the Labour Relations Board. There must be negotiations afoot with respect to these issues. Is this something that is being worked on already?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the discussions have been ongoing. Obviously, if any labour relations issues can't be resolved, they would be referred to the LRB.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
[ Page 6519 ]
G. Plant: I have a couple of issues on section 12. I want to at least see if it is possible to understand the distinction between what the provincial emergency program does in the way of coordinating response to emergencies and what this corporation will do. I wonder if it is fair or accurate to generalize, to this extent, that there is no attempt here to change indirectly any of the powers that exist in the provincial Emergency Program Act. Is that a fair and accurate statement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: That certainly shortens the inquiry that would arise if the answer were otherwise.
Let me, in that context then, indicate that I have a minor bit of concern with the language of section 12(1) of the act. This allows cabinet to make orders in relation to an emergency communications corporation. The power is cast in extraordinarily broad terms. It is expressed in this way: if cabinet considers it necessary in the public interest -- which is a very, very broad test -- the cabinet may then "make any order in relation to an emergency communications corporation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate." Could I ask the Attorney General what kinds of orders are imagined or envisaged by this power, and why is it necessary to grant the power in such unrestrained terms?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It may be difficult to find an example of what might be anticipated under this particular section. What's intended here is that the provincial government
This would anticipate that kind of a possibility. I'm certain that this power would be rarely, if at all, used under any circumstances, because what we want to do is allow these corporations to function. If there is, at the end of the day, another corporation -- if there's more than one corporation -- they might have protocols with each other in the way they deal with these issues.
I can't think of any circumstances under which this power would be required at this time, but we doesn't want to await that kind of eventuality and find ourselves powerless to deal with issues that may cut across regional lines.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Sections 12 and 13 approved.
On section 14.
G. Plant: Under this umbrella I will awkwardly attempt to assume that there is an implementation provision. I want to ask the Attorney General a question or two about the timing, the expected implementation of this.
I have seen a memorandum of understanding, as I said earlier, that suggests that the test phase of the radio system, in Vancouver at any rate, will be operational in late 1998, that the remainder of the GVRD is expected to be operational by mid-1999, and that both of the expanded areas -- to include, I suppose, the whole southwest B.C. area -- are expected to be operational by mid-2000.
That is a pretty important part of the process. Firstly, I wonder if the Attorney General could confirm that those are his expectations of the timing for the radio system. Secondly, what is the expected up-and-running date or operational date for the centre in Vancouver -- the building?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The timings, as indicated by the hon. member, are correct. The centre would be up and running by the fall of 1998.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.
[SECTION 16 (b), by renumbering the proposed section 2 (2.1) of the Pension (Municipal) Act as section 2 (2.2).]
[4:15]
Amendment approved.Section 16 as amended approved.
Section 17 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Office of the Premier.
The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
On vote 8: office of the Premier, $2,295,000.Hon. G. Clark: I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Mr. Doug McArthur, who will be with me, I hope, for the duration of the estimates.
[ Page 6520 ]
B. Penner: I'll begin my remarks in my capacity as the opposition Youth critic and direct some comments toward the Premier in his stated capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth. It is a privilege for me to take part in these estimates and to address some of the concerns of young people in British Columbia. I believe that young people are too often given a bad rap and stereotyped, picked on and blamed for many of today's problems, particularly by older people. I believe that in many ways today's youth are no different than the youth of a decade ago, 20 years ago or perhaps even a century ago. What is different, clearly, is the environment in which we all live.
It is important for us to define who it is we are speaking about when we talk about youth. For the purposes of my remarks and, I expect, throughout the estimates debates here today, youth are individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 years of age. In British Columbia, we are about the only province in the country where the youth population is increasing. The rest of Canada is seeing a significant decrease in the youth population. Since 1989 the youth population in British Columbia has increased 12.6 percent. We now have about 500,000 young people in British Columbia.
This presents us with both a challenge and an opportunity, especially compared to the rest of the country. Whereas other provinces are seeing the greying of their populations, putting a strain on their health care programs and raising questions about the future sustainability of pension plans, we in British Columbia do not have this problem to the same extent. A young population -- provided that they are able to find meaningful employment -- will be paying taxes, which are necessary to support the social programs we have all come to rely upon.
However, without sufficient employment opportunities, this potential advantage for British Columbia will become a liability. Indeed, all is not well in British Columbia. Youth unemployment is double the rate of those over the age of 25. Youth have an unbelievably high rate of unemployment. Looking back a few years, in 1990 the unemployment rate for students was 9.6 percent. But by this time last year it had skyrocketed to over 22 percent.
The youth participation rate in the B.C. workforce has traditionally been higher than elsewhere in Canada. But since 1989, the youth participation rate has fallen 12.7 percent, more than in any other province in Canada. This demonstrates a worrisome trend. B.C.'s young people are giving up on our economy's ability to create new jobs. In 1980 there were 15,000 young people on welfare in British Columbia. By 1993 that number was 43,500 -- truly a dramatic increase.
During the last election, of course, the NDP promised to create 11,500 new jobs for last summer. But Statistics Canada reported that last summer, in fact, there were 8,000 fewer jobs -- not more jobs, but fewer jobs. Youth need more than just empty promises.
They need a more focused education. I believe we need to focus on practical job experience, expand our co-op programs -- particularly in our colleges and universities -- and complete that with skills training and private sector partnerships and apprenticeship programs.
Above all else, what our government needs is a government that encourages the private sector to create long-term, meaningful employment. They need jobs that will help pay for their student loans, rent and tuition. They need jobs to unleash their potential. Our young people don't need just more empty promises. I will have some specific questions for the Premier, but at this time I would like to give way to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who, I believe, has a specific line of inquiry.
C. Hansen: I would gladly defer to the Premier if he wants to respond initially to my colleague's comments.
During the estimates process last year, we raised the issue of the student summer employment program specifically. I raised the concern about the length or duration of jobs that would be provided -- that it's one thing to count the number of individuals who participate in these programs, but we should also be looking at how long each of these positions last for. The Premier undertook at that time to do a thorough evaluation of these types of issues. I'm wondering if he could give us some conclusions that may have been drawn from that evaluation.
Hon. G. Clark: We have an evaluation, actually, right here. We'd be happy to provide it to the member for all the programs. As I hope the members opposite know, my Youth Office is given constant briefings. There are quite a few briefings and interactions with members opposite about the progress or lack of progress, as the case may be, with respect to the various programs under the Guarantee for Youth initiative of our government.
With respect to summer employment programs, last year, as you know, we created 2,891 jobs, which exceeded the target. This year the target was 3,300, and we've created 3,346 jobs, again exceeding the target. The Summer Works program is a very cost-effective initiative. It's a subsidy program for employers and is working extremely well.
The member last year, as I recall, had some discussion about (a) the quality of the work and (b) the duration. I'm quite pleased, especially with the youth forum I had -- the second Premier's Youth Forum -- that young people said that we shouldn't be as obsessed with how long the jobs are, because the nature of the job market today is such that there's a series of jobs created and that getting any experience, even short-term experience, is a valuable thing.
We've defined the Student Summer Works program as 150 hours minimum in terms of job length as a summer job, because many of them are part-time initiatives, and $9 an hour is the average wage. Last year we had a 50 percent subsidy up to a certain amount, and this year we kept the subsidy level the same but gave instructions -- in terms of the demand, which is larger than the amount of money -- to give priority to those employers who take less than the maximum subsidy allowed. That's one of the reasons we've been able to exceed the target without any incremental funding.
We're constantly monitoring the situation. We try to ensure that with Student Summer Works, youth receive work experience directly related to their field of study or interest, and about 50 percent of the students were placed in jobs relating to science and technology. The types of jobs varied, including a special needs youth coordinator, a junior architectural assistant, an aircraft maintenance assistant, a tourism coordinator -- and I could go on.
We try to target the jobs to the area of interest of the student, and we try to ensure that it is a minimum length of time and a wage that is higher than minimum wage. In this case, it's about $9 an hour. About half the jobs that have been created are in the science and tech fields, and again, it's reasonably successful. That's not totally surprising, given that there's a significant level of government subsidy.
Overall, the Guarantee for Youth program is the most ambitious job creation initiative for young people in Canada,
[ Page 6521 ]
and it continues to be. This year, as you know, we've expanded it to $23 million, I think, and we've expanded the number of job targets to 12,000. We're quite optimistic that we will be there, because we're on track to meet the targets.
[4:30]
C. Hansen: When we had this discussion last year, I think we weren't talking specifically about the Student Summer Works '96 program but about the overall student summer job programs. I believe there were eight altogether. The targets last year, I believe, were something like 13,000 jobs, of which approximately 11,500 materialized out of those programs.I want to come back to this because it was in that context that we talked about evaluation. The Premier assured me last year that there would be an evaluation done of the overall summer jobs program, not just of Summer Works. This may not be a case in which we can talk about job-years of employment, but could we talk about job-weeks? How many weeks of employment do we have when we look at those 11,500 young British Columbians who were able to benefit from the programs last summer?
Hon. G. Clark: The reason I was confused is because the member referred to summer jobs. The Guarantee for Youth is not a summer job program for young people; it's a program to create jobs for young people. The only real component of it that's a summer job program is the Student Summer Works program, so that's perhaps why my confusion.
With respect to the overall Guarantee for Youth and the initiatives, I have the evaluation. I have it right here before me, and I'd be happy to send it to the member. To answer specific questions, the environmental youth teams have a 13-week average length of time. Student Summer Works is 150 hours, and First Job in Science is a 40.9-week average.
The You-BET initiative -- the youth business entrepreneurship training program -- is not a job program, strictly speaking, but positions, and there are three stages of training over one year. Over 60 young people created new businesses out of that or partly as a result of that, and then, of course, the Crown youth employment initiatives vary between some permanent part-time jobs.
So we have the evaluation of last year, and as I said last year, we were quite pleased with it. We are always refining the initiative but are quite pleased with it, with the exception of Opportunities '96, which was not successful, relatively speaking at least. It didn't meet the targets. This year we've abolished that and created something called Job Start, which is a different initiative trying to work with the business community. We also have another rather smaller program called Youth and the Internet, which we've announced as a pilot project.
C. Hansen: In the discussion we had last year, which was on August 14, the Premier went to great lengths to describe to us the evaluation process that would be done. He said:
"I think a full evaluation of all of the programs -- the number of days worked, the number of jobs created, the number of potential jobs created, the quality of those jobs, the pay, because they also vary in pay, the level of the subsidy, whether that can be changed, all that -- will be part of the review, with a view to improving program delivery next year."Then after a couple of other questions, he went on to assure that this evaluation would be completed by the end of the fiscal year. He promised that I would be able to have a copy of that evaluation by the end of the fiscal year, which would have made it last March 31. The apologies he gave at the time were that he couldn't make it available in advance of the 1997 program being created, but he assured me that I would have that evaluation.
Could the minister tell us, after all those grandiose promises last August 14, why it was that this evaluation program didn't even start until April of this year?
Hon. G. Clark: They weren't grandiose promises; they were commitments I made, which we are attempting to keep. I'll read you what I said, because I have Hansard right here before me. It says: "The reviews are usually conducted -- and this will be no different -- near the end of the fiscal year in order to guide deliberations with respect to budget-making
It's an iterative process, of course, and as a result of the evaluation work that was done, we dropped Opportunities '96, we started You-BET, and we reduced the subsidy for First Job in Science from 100 percent to 75 percent. We decided to maintain the subsidy in the Student Summer Works program but to give preference to employers who did not maximize the subsidy.
So we've done an evaluation, and I have Hansard here with my commitments. The evaluation is here, and I'll be happy to send it to the member for his advice and consideration. We're making progress, and all the evidence suggests that the programs are working extremely well -- better than anywhere in the country. And all the programs suggest that there are areas that we could, no doubt, improve upon.
C. Hansen: The Premier was quoting from Hansard, but unfortunately he should have quoted the very next sentence. The very next sentence in Hansard reads: "Therefore the evaluation will start almost immediately upon the conclusion of those programs or the end of the summer, if you will."
I guess part of it is that I raised this not to berate the Premier, but I certainly recall the estimates process last year, and the commitments the Premier made were done with a great spirit of cooperation in the assurances he gave. My concern is that the assurances that he's going to give us this year may not be followed up on, and I would like the Premier to make an undertaking that the commitments he makes in this House during the estimates process will be followed up on and will not wait until we in turn make phone calls to his office to ask where an evaluation process is that should have started months and months prior to when it actually got underway.
I would also like to raise the issue of the student jobs program that was announced this year. It was announced on April 11. We were the last province in Canada to come forward to announce 1997 student summer job programs, and certainly as far as university students are concerned, they're basically out of classes at that point and are trying to finish up final exams. To get to the point of announcing programs in the middle of April is far too late to really be of maximum benefit to students as they're coming out of universities. I'm wondering if the Premier could undertake to assure us that the 1998 programs will be announced in a more timely fashion so that students can properly take advantage of them.
Hon. G. Clark: That's good, constructive advice, and I'll certainly take it under advisement. I have to say that we have not had any real criticism. The number of jobs were filled -- oversubscribed immediately -- so there's lots of employers
[ Page 6522 ]
looking for the subsidy and lots of students willing to take it. So by that definition, it's not that it hasn't been successful. I think the member has made a valid point, that if we could announce it slightly earlier, that would be helpful.
I want to reiterate that evaluation took place exactly as I indicated last year. These are ongoing and iterative processes of evaluation. The members opposite have a certain obligation, it seems to me, to avail themselves of my staff. I've made them available to all of you. I know that many of you have met with my staff from time to time.
While I make the commitment and we do the evaluation, the information is available. It could be made available in a more timely fashion, I will grant the members opposite, but with freedom-of-information legislation as well as full staff cooperation -- I'm sure all members would agree that they've had that from my staff in the Youth Office -- members know that there's clearly no attempt to circumvent any commitments I made.
I certainly give you my undertaking to do the best I can again next year.
C. Hansen: Before I turn this back to my colleague from Chilliwack, I'll just point out one commitment the Premier made to me last year, and that's that he would get this evaluation material to me. He didn't. What he said was: "
With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.
B. Penner: I can't resist mentioning that I too asked for an evaluative framework from the Premier in terms of the overall goals and objectives of the Guarantee for Youth program -- primarily the job creation aspect of that program. In response -- and I'm also quoting from Hansard -- the Premier said: "I expect to have an evaluative framework that I can share with members, and I can have excellent briefings again with members on all the evaluations of the programs that we have embarked upon." Of course, we on this side are still waiting for those programs and evaluations.
I'll ask a question of the Premier: has there been an explicit framework or guideline established for evaluating all of the programs, primarily the job creation programs under the Guarantee for Youth program? If so, has that been compiled in a document form that can be shared with all members?
Hon. G. Clark: I can't resist saying that this seems a slightly petty line of questioning. We evaluated the Guarantee for Youth program at the Premier's Youth Forum. We made a progress report and presented it to the Youth Forum. Each ministry that has a component evaluates it, and it's evaluated very rigorously by Treasury Board in the process.
We made significant changes as a result of that evaluation. We dropped Opportunities '96; it was eliminated. We created new programs: Job Start, Youth and the Internet. More money is provided -- from $20 million to $23 million. Higher targets are provided this year -- 12,000 as opposed to 11,000 last year. We've reviewed participants, employers; we did a survey of all of them. We got excellent reports. We had a variety of reports -- anecdotal evidence at the Youth Forum. We have a formal evaluation, which I grant the member should have been provided before now. But we've done a formal evaluation of the programs and made the changes accordingly.
While I hear the member's concern about not following up in detail on Hansard questions last year
I appreciate that you could come and ask me these questions, and I don't quarrel with that. All I'm saying is: surely there are more substantive issues to canvass, rather than the fact that you waited until estimates before you asked me for some of these detailed questions -- because I can provide it all for you.
B. Penner: The hon. Chair will note from the debate so far that in fact these questions were asked of the Premier almost a year ago -- 11 months ago -- and we're still waiting.
In terms of the evaluation that has been performed, I wonder if the Premier can indicate if an analysis has been undertaken as to the return on investment, as it were, from the taxpayers' point of view, for every dollar contributed to these various problems. Which particular program produces more jobs per dollar invested by the taxpayer? Has there been an analysis undertaken from that perspective? If there is such an analysis, I believe that could perhaps guide us in the future so that we get a bigger bang for our buck when we're looking at these wage subsidy programs and how to cooperate with business.
Hon. G. Clark: There is, but it's very hard to make cross-comparisons between the programs, because they're designed for different purposes. For example, if you are hiring youth who are difficult to hire or need more skills and are not in school, then you may need a higher level of subsidy. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, because you're trying to achieve a certain objective. If you're a student, you may need a lower level of subsidy and may be successful. On average it's $2,000 per job, which is very good, although the jobs aren't year-round jobs in every case.
The best bang for the buck is pretty straightforward, and that's the youth business entrepreneurship training program, even though it doesn't create any jobs per se because it isn't a placement program or subsidy program. It's a fairly modest amount of expenditure in terms of the training for young people who want to get into their own business. But I think it's fair to say that we have evidence of 60 businesses being created directly or indirectly as a result of people participating in these seminars. It doesn't automatically flow from that that a doubling of the program will double the number of jobs, although clearly it's a program we'd like to expand and we have expanded this year as a result of that evaluation.
Further, we've got a corporate mentoring program dovetailed with the youth business entrepreneurship training program. Finally, the banks have actually come up with an interesting program to provide some loans and seed capital for young people getting into business, and we have partnered up a little bit with the banks.
I have an excellent staff at the Youth Office. Renée Saklikar, who heads that up, attended the national conference on youth employment back east. Renée worked hard to make
[ Page 6523 ]
sure that our programs can fit nicely with some of the initiatives of the banks and other people from the corporate community who feel they have a corporate responsibility in this area to ensure that it flows nicely from youth business entrepreneurship training and more detail around that, to mentoring with people in the business community who can mentor young people and give them assistance by providing access to capital through their banks.
So I think that is the program that has the biggest bang for the buck, but it meets a particular target audience and doesn't deal with some of the harder-to-employ young people who might need a higher level of subsidy, and that's an argument for continuing those programs.
[4:45]
B. Penner: I thank the Premier for those remarks. A number of times the Premier indirectly touched on a program which existed last year called Opportunities '96. We know, and we all agree, that there were some problems with that program. It's not back again this year, at least not in its original form.Just by way of review, Opportunities '96 promised to create 3,500 jobs at a cost to the taxpayers of $1.2 million. My understanding is that this was supposed to happen through encouraging the private sector to hire people, without a direct government subsidy to do so. At the end of the day, I was told that in fact only 264 jobs were created by Opportunities '96. So it clearly fell short of the target.
At the time, and during last year's estimates, the Premier indicated that part of the shortfall was due to the shortness of time in terms of negotiating or discussing matters with the private sector -- with the individual businesses involved. This is what he said in Hansard:
"We have to keep working at it. We're not going to give up on the non-subsidized corporate community in challenging them to do their part for youth unemployment. The lesson is that we've got to work closer with them to try to make sure that this is a success. We're continuing to work away, with, I think, some positive news to report in the near future."This year there is no such thing as Opportunities '97. I just wonder if the Premier can elaborate on what happened, because I took his comments last year to mean that yes, there was a disappointment in Opportunities '96, but we're going to work harder, dig in and try to make Opportunities '97 a success. It doesn't seem to have resurfaced this year. I look forward to the Premier's comments.
Hon. G. Clark: In discussions with the business community, it was decided to actually cancel Opportunities '97, because not only did Opportunities '96 not work but we needed to work more with the private sector to be successful. So we did two things which I am quite excited about. First of all, we started a new program called Job Start, which essentially is a training subsidy program for non-students. We ended up making it a subsidy program to try to get young people into jobs. I guess it's modelled a little bit after the Student Summer Works program, only it's for non-students. This one, I think, can be successful. It has only just begun, and about 10 percent of the number of jobs we targeted have been created so far. But we think that can work.
Secondly, and far more importantly -- and I hope the members will agree with this -- I formed a Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment, chaired by Paul Lee. Paul Lee is an outstanding relatively young British Columbian who was chief executive officer of Electronic Arts, I believe. He is currently the general manager of Electronic Arts and a very successful business person in his own right. He's quite prominent and involved in many other companies in British Columbia. He very generously agreed to chair the Premier's Advisory Council on Youth Employment.
He put together -- much more than I could have done -- an excellent committee of business people to give advice to the government. That committee consists of people like Bob Fairweather, the chair of the board of trade; Martin Glynn from the Hong Kong Bank; Roslyn Kunin, a well-known economist; and there's a variety of other people on this advisory committee. It's a really top-notch, blue-chip committee. All of the members are volunteering their time. Darcy Rezac acts on it from the board of trade, as well, I believe. I think Jerry Lampert is on it from the Business Council. There's a broad representation on this committee, chaired by Paul Lee. They have been working extremely hard. Every month they've been meeting, benchmarking and looking at ways that the government can assist in job creation.
We haven't got a program flowing out of that group yet. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, because we've been working with them. The Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment is also on that committee. He's working hard, trying to find ways that we could drive a non-subsidized government initiative to create jobs for young people. Obviously, like any committee, it has its differences.
Like anything, the recommendations they make may or may not be accepted by government. It is too early to say, but I have a great deal of faith in Paul Lee and many of the business people who are participating. I look forward to their recommendations and to implementing some recommendations. So by the time we meet next year, there will be some good private sector initiatives working with government for youth unemployment. In the meantime, we scrapped the one we did have and replaced it with Job Start, which we think can be modestly successful while we're working for perhaps bigger structural changes that we could make to try to promote youth employment.
B. Penner: I think the Premier has been reading my mind. He keeps getting to my next question before I ask it. I was about to ask about the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment. As the Premier knows, he made the announcement regarding the formation of that committee on March 13 of this year. The Premier is quite correct that as a committee it certainly does possess a number of very talented individuals, including Jerry Lampert, who is the president of the B.C. Business Council, and a host of others, including representatives from the trade union community.
I was going to ask the Premier about what was happening with that. I think he substantially answered the question about what kind of progress
Hon. G. Clark: There is no deadline for the report, because I've been really deferring to the committee and the volunteers involved. They've been meeting hard. I can tell you that not just Paul Lee but all of the business people there have no desire to meet every month for years on end. They are very busy people, very successful people, and they want to make
[ Page 6524 ]
sure that what they recommend has some prospects for success. Off the top of my head, I can't give you a time frame, except that I think it will certainly not be years but maybe a few months away before we get some concrete, really specific suggestions coming out of this committee.
B. Penner: So for the sake of clarification, then, and to summarize, because Opportunities '96 was not returned this year in the form of Opportunities '97, there is only the Job Start program, which is a wage subsidy program. I believe it's correct to state that there are no non-subsidized job creation efforts, aside from the mentorship program and the You-Bet program, encouraging the private sector to take up the slack and hire some young people. I think that's unfortunate.
I had the opportunity earlier this year to read a very interesting report prepared or at least paid for by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, working in association with a group advocating on behalf of young people based out of Ottawa. They took a different approach to the whole issue of youth unemployment. Instead of looking at the responsibility of government to create jobs for young people, they took a different approach and said: "What is it that the private sector can do to specifically hire greater numbers of young people, given our ever-increasing levels of youth unemployment?" They surveyed private sector employers across Canada and looked at various ways they go about hiring young people and for what types of jobs -- whether it's internships, co-op programs in cooperation with universities or apprenticeship programs. What the report recommended is that there be some way of pulling together this information from all of these diverse and individual corporations and businesses to coordinate their strategy. Many corporations are in the position of reinventing the wheel and could learn from the expertise of others.
I offer this by way of a suggestion. Perhaps the provincial government could be a catalyst in terms of pulling together the information from the private sector entities in our province. They could find out how they go about hiring young people and for what specific types of jobs, and disseminate that information, so that the different businesses can learn from each other and, perhaps more importantly, so that young people can find out what these corporations are doing and whether they're looking at six-month internship programs or prefer university-sponsored co-op programs to hiring youth. That might be one way to replace Opportunities '96, which clearly didn't work out the way we had hoped. I would encourage the Premier and the government to perhaps consider that approach.
I think what we get to many times in this whole debate around youth unemployment and ways to solve it is information-sharing -- for better or for worse, it comes down to that. In today's world, information truly is power, and we need to give power to our young people by giving them access to the information.
I'll just canvass a number of the other programs that are contained in A Guarantee for Youth. The Premier did already refer to the Job Start program. I was going to ask some more questions about it. I understand from his comments, though, that it is specifically designed for non-students, and I take it from the Premier's response that that's correct. The goal this year is to create 2,000 jobs at a cost of $2.4 million to the taxpayer. Now, this is where I need some clarification. I understand that the way the program works is that to qualify, a private sector employer has to offer at least four months worth of employment, but they will receive at most a two-month wage subsidy, I believe. I'm wondering if the Premier can elaborate on how that wage subsidy works, what the maximum amount is per hour, and explain the criteria around the length of the program.
Hon. G. Clark: The purpose of it is pretty straightforward. It's to be a training subsidy rather than a simple wage subsidy. The Student Summer Works program is essentially a wage subsidy program. This is designed to try to assist
We would help with, if you will, the transition period while the young person gets trained -- give a subsidy to the company to train. I'm just trying to find the exact amount of the subsidy; I don't have it. I'm sure it's here in my binder, but I haven't got it off the top of my head. The notion would be that, again, it would be a payment based on the first two months of the wages of the individual, to subsidize that as a way of giving the company the ability to train.
Remember, what companies say quite regularly is: "Even at minimum wage, we can't afford to train somebody at a job for that early entry period. We're too small." So this is a way of giving them a break at the beginning.
The subsidy is eight weeks. The maximum subsidy is $3.50 per hour. As I say, it's a new program, First Job for Youth. It's designed not to be a straight wage subsidy, like the Student Summer Works program or some of the other ones, but to trigger an entry-level training period and give some government subsidy to assist employers to hire young people.
B. Penner: I thank the Premier for that answer. Part of the reason I ask the question is that, over the last number of months, I have from time to time received phone calls from individuals who are concerned that perhaps employers are taking advantage of certain subsidies offered by the provincial government. Then, at the very end of the subsidy, they shuffle that employee out -- in this case, a restaurant is the specific complaint I got -- then bring in another young person, again apply for a government subsidy, take the subsidy and, when the money has run out, get rid of that employee. Clearly that's not the intent. That would be an abuse of the program if it were happening.
I wonder if there is any mechanism for the government to follow up, to see if
Hon. G. Clark: Oh yes, they have to enter into a contract with the government, essentially. In the contract will be penalties if they don't comply. There is a follow-up audit provision. The only thing I don't know is how long the period is, where they can go back and check and see what's happening. The
[ Page 6525 ]
government has kind of pioneered this with some of the Youth Works initiatives and others. This notion of a training allowance and following up on it is much better public policy than the straight wage subsidy we sort of alluded to. Anyway, there definitely is follow-up in contractual commitments required of the employer.
B. Penner: One of the things that I struggle with conceptually is that these programs are often housed in different ministries. For example, the Ministry of Skills and Training has responsibility for, I believe, some of these components, and perhaps the Ministry of Education or Ministry of Social Services, as well. Then there's the Premier and his office, who I believe coordinate all of these different programs. I don't know whose responsibility it would be to follow up on the employers involved in this program, which particular ministry actually administers the subsidy and who is responsible for checking on the private sector participants.
Hon. G. Clark: The Employment and Investment ministry is responsible for Job Start. But you're quite right, this is a cross-government initiative which we coordinate. In some cases, Employment and Investment is not a program delivery ministry; it's more of a policy, bigger-picture ministry. So it is possible for Employment and Investment to almost, if you will, contract to other ministries to help deliver the programs. But they're the ministry responsible for this initiative, including the auditing, etc. It's their responsibility to see it has been done.
[5:00]
B. Penner: Thank you to the Premier for that answer. I'll move on to the You-BET program. We have also mentioned it in passing here tonight. My understanding is that the goal is for about 1,400 young people to receive skills and, in the words of the government brochure, the smarts needed to start their own business. To this end, about $1.4 million has been budgeted for, I believe, workshops to take place in 30 communities across British Columbia. I wonder how many young people have actually received the training or gone to these seminars. The goal is 1,400 young people. I'm wondering how many actually have attended these seminars.Hon. G. Clark: A question: so far this fiscal year?
B. Penner: Yes.
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is 525 positions to date -- or 37 percent of the target has been reached to date, which is pretty well bang on. Actually, it's a little bit ahead of schedule in terms of, obviously, reaching 100 percent. As I mentioned earlier, you can tell I'm quite sympathetic to the program.
The young people coming out of it are very enthused. We have some just outstanding young entrepreneurs who come and give a lot of the talks and tour. I don't know if you know True North Clothing Co. and Dony Sawchuk and the other gentlemen involved in that initiative. They've been sort of evangelists for the small business sector with the young people, giving them a hand. I've been privileged enough to attend briefly some of the sessions to talk to young people.
Again, as I said earlier, about 60 businesses were started, very small businesses in almost every case. But they have great potential to grow and add more jobs. So this is on track. It's a bit expanded from last year -- more communities, bigger demand, looking at more intensive stages or levels of this initiative.
There is a relatively high dropout rate. So they have a first-stage seminar on how to start their own business. You might get a lot of people for that. Then as they move into the more intensive business planning sessions, you do get people dropping out. At the end of the day
Many of those young people will start a business. They just haven't yet, or we don't know about it because we don't follow up entirely. Many of them won't start a business. This kind of training is useful in any event and may lead to somebody starting a business ten or 15 years from now -- in terms of setting the seeds, you know, the germ of an idea there for young people. So this program
It is a little harder to evaluate it as opposed to, say, a Student Summer Works program, where you can actually count the number of jobs, the average wage, etc. This one is a little different. But I think any evaluation we have done and any objective evaluation that would be done would point to this clearly being a very successful program. I certainly share that view. It's just slightly harder to quantitatively analyze.
B. Penner: We had a similar discussion about the difficulty of quantifying programs when we discussed, last year, the youth business development training program. I wonder, because that program doesn't exist this year, if it's correct of me to assume that essentially the You-BET program this year replaces last year's youth business development training program. I wonder if the Premier could clarify that -- whether the youth business development training program which existed last year has been replaced this year by You-BET, the youth business entrepreneurship training program. Are they basically the same program under a different name?
Hon. G. Clark: They're the same program. I think You-BET is the acronym for the formal title which you gave. I can't remember.
B. Penner: You know you're in government when people use acronyms; government loves acronyms. I don't think I do particularly.
However, last year the Premier encouraged me to ask what perhaps is an unfair question. Nevertheless, he asked me to ask the following question. He said that this year I should check with him to see how many jobs were created by the various businesses that were established following the training. Last year, I believe, the stated target for the youth business development training program was 1,000 jobs, created by whatever number of businesses. We did have a full discussion last year -- I've just reviewed Hansard -- where we talked about how hard it is to measure how many jobs are created per business. There are spinoff jobs and all of that. But the Premier did invite me to check with him this year to see how many jobs had been created and businesses started. I'm just asking if he does have that information.
Hon. G. Clark: In the analysis we've done, as I've said, we had 1,000 participants in 36 stage 1 workshops held throughout the province last year. Those are not jobs; those are positions or participants. Sixty participants from You-BET last year launched their own businesses to date, that we know of.
[ Page 6526 ]
Again, we're not tracking these young people as much as we might, because it's clearly a private affair if someone wants to start a business, but we know of it. That has led to a couple of hundred jobs that we know of -- again, directly. That has great prospects for many, many more jobs in the future.
We have added, as I said earlier, a new Youth Mentorship program, and that was launched this year. It will link 300 youth, and as they complete the You-BET or similar small business programs, we try to match them with mentors. There's a fair amount of management work in governments to work on things like mentorship, but I'm increasingly of the view that this is a very, very positive initiative.
I'll give you one example. I don't know if you're going to ask about this, but the Youth and the Internet project
My concerns about the Internet are really
First of all, we should be endeavouring to make sure that every library in the province has access to the Internet. That's a big challenge, and we're making progress. Every school should have access to the Internet. If you open up the libraries
This is part of our electronic highway accord, part of our government's initiative. We teamed that up with young people, because young people, of course, are much more computer-literate than anybody else -- certainly than I am. The idea would be to take a young person from the community. We pay the wage, if you will. They work in a library that has Internet access, setting up their own web page for the community, training young people on how to train people on the Internet, having sessions so that older senior citizens, for example, could come in and this could be demystified, and opening up new horizons for communities in B.C. It's very few actual paid staff, and it has to be partnered with a library.
The thing that's most exciting is that we put out a call to computer companies. Apple computers, who have an excellent person here in Victoria, Richard Catinus; IBM, who have good people here; and a variety of other corporate sponsors -- Sun Microsystems, you name it
I don't think it would be nearly as successful as we'd like without the corporate sponsorship. They're doing this for free; this is something they're doing as good corporate citizens in British Columbia -- corporate mentoring of the young people and kind of adopting a library. There's a little bit of rivalry between the companies about who can make the best web page and who can do the best thing for their community. It has got great promise.
If we can get the private sector involved in a mentoring capacity with young people to give them the practical expertise they need, we think it could have much better mileage, if you will, and be a much better program than the government itself trying to sponsor business entrepreneurship training. In this case it's for computers and to access the Internet. But it's even better if it's to assist them with their business planning, pitfalls of starting their own business, how to get access to capital or what the best way is to pitch to a bank or credit union. Who best to know how to provide what information should be available than business people themselves.
So, again, the mentorship thing is fairly hard to organize, because you need to get volunteers, if you will, to participate. But I've been very impressed by the corporate community's coming forward on the business entrepreneurship training and, as I said earlier, on the Youth and the Internet project.
B. Penner: It's apparent to me that the Premier must have a copy of my questions, because he keeps getting ahead to my next question. The Premier's comments dealing with the Internet training and Youth Mentorship programs raised a few more questions in my mind. I'll try to give the Premier a few questions all at one time.
First of all, just by way of a comment, last year during our estimates debate, we did have the question about how we get information out to young people. What is the best way to do it? The Premier did make the statement that perhaps an ad in the Vancouver Sun was not the best way to do it. That was in response, I guess, to a mild criticism from me for the amount of money being spent on newspaper ads around the province extolling the virtues of these programs. My suggestion was an expanded use of the Internet, and I'm pleased to see that the government is doing that.
In terms of questions, I'd like to ask the Premier how much public taxpayers' money is required to go into the Internet training program -- which I think is a sound idea. As he indicated, this is taking place in ten libraries around British Columbia at present, though unfortunately not in Chilliwack.
Secondly, I'd like to mention that I did receive a copy of a letter -- which I believe was addressed to the Premier, but it was copied to me -- from the Native Urban Youth Association based in Vancouver. They were commenting on the announcement earlier this year of this Internet training program in public libraries. The director of that association indicated that they felt setting up the Internet access sites in public libraries, while they're free to go in there, does only appeal to a certain segment of the population and, is perhaps rather classist, if I can use that expression.
The types of people that typically go into public libraries, if I can generalize, are probably mostly middle-class people who have that habit of going there. The person from the Native Urban Youth Association thought that establishing a site in their drop-in centre, their youth facility, which targets young people living on the street, would be a more innovative way, or an additional way, to reach a whole new segment of the population who wouldn't typically find themselves wandering into a public library. I invite the Premier's comments on that, as well as on the cost to taxpayers of this program.
Hon. G. Clark: This wonderful new initiative is a pilot project, and it costs the taxpayers $200,000. I'm familiar with
[ Page 6527 ]
the organization the member refers to, and we are actively considering the possible expansion to things like native friendship centres, as well as, of course, more libraries in B.C.
[5:15]
B. Penner: Just to back up and touch on the Youth Mentorship program, my notes indicate that the goal is to match about 300 would-be young entrepreneurs with business mentors for a period of four months. I wonder if the Premier could tell us how many private sector participants there are in this program. How many people from the corporate community have stepped forward, and how is this program progressing?Hon. G. Clark: I don't have that here, but I'll be happy to get it for the member. Just on the Internet access that we talked about earlier, there were 12 corporate mentors, but for this one, obviously we'll need many more than that. So I'll get the information; I don't know.
B. Penner: Another question that deals with the Youth Mentorship program. I just wonder how much the province has budgeted for this program and what the direct cost is to the taxpayers, as well. Is there any follow-up research or evaluation done as to what happens after people have completed the mentorship program? I think I'd be interested in that simply for the sake of interest. What happens after people spend four months with perhaps top corporate executives? Where do they go from there?
Hon. G. Clark: The total You-BET budget is $1.4 million. That hasn't been increased; we ask the staff to try to handle that within existing budgets in, I think, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. The cost is modest because it's all volunteer, although there's a staff-time cost in terms of organizing and any follow-up.
Generally speaking, with respect to the business entrepreneurship training programs, we will do some follow-up to ensure that we're getting good taxpayer bang for the buck, if you will, but we won't do follow-ups to sort of check up on the young people or anybody involved in it. Generally speaking, people who are starting their own business aren't necessarily interested in reporting. It's a lot of work for the government to go and chase them down and get them to report in, etc. It's a free society, and there's a free market system. We're interested in incubation and helping and getting some mentors there, and then they're on their own and they go and create a job with corporate mentors.
Our experience, as limited as it is, has been that many of the corporate mentors take this very seriously. And it doesn't stop after four months; it may go on for all their life, actually. In other cases, where some of the mentors are not sure about it -- it's not for them -- they won't invest as much in it and it won't work that well. It's a volunteer kind of operation, and it requires the commitment of individuals. Sometimes personalities clash and it's not successful; other times it is. So we're only monitoring it to the extent that we want to make sure that the taxpayer is getting good value for the dollar. We don't keep monitoring it over the years.
B. Penner: I thank the Premier for those comments. I agree with him that it's a good approach. I think all of us who have been elected to this Legislature have had mentors of some sort in our lives in the past, and it plays an important role for all of us to have someone that we look up to and that we can look to as a guide in our endeavours.
My colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara has indicated that he has a question related to youth that he would like to ask the Premier at this time. I will be resuming once he's finished with his questions.
V. Anderson: I'd like to ask the Premier about a particular program that I expect he's aware of. He's very aware, I think, of the Picasso Cafe program, which was begun by David Dranchuck and has been very successful in enabling street people to get off and get training and get into the community. David went on from that to develop ASTEP, a mechanics training program -- a pre-apprenticeship training program -- which has worked extremely well, and he had a lot of help from qualified mechanics and people in the community in developing it. I've been to a number of the graduations of this program and know that the students from here who came out of social services and other difficulties were able to get a basic pre-apprenticeship training program and then were taken into apprenticeship programs by companies.
In order to do that, it was a six-month training program, and the ministry has said it will now only fund students for four-month training programs, which doesn't give you enough time to do the qualifications for the pre-apprenticeship training program. So David, in trying to work with the ministry, has finally, just this last week or so, written to them and said: "I'll have to drop out, because we can't do it with only a four-month program."
I think this is really unfortunate, because they worked hard in getting that garage on 4th Avenue in east Vancouver and the facilities and the whole non-profit society up, and in getting the mechanics and the people who were supporting that, and the tools. To have that program, which has given
Hon. G. Clark: No, that's the first time I've heard of that. The Picasso Cafe is a wonderful initiative. It has worked extremely well, although it is a somewhat expensive program, I think. But it's dealing with hard-to-employ young people -- street-involved youth. So this is the first time I've heard of this one. I'd be happy to look into it. I won't make any commitments here -- I hope the member appreciates -- but I'd be happy to look into it and see if there's something we can do.
V. Anderson: I'll make arrangements for you to do that, and I think the best way, as far as providing you with the information, is to also have you drop in at the garage, which is very close to your own riding. If it's not in your riding, it's on the doorstep, and they'd be delighted to have you come and to show you around. I think it's an example of community working together with the same success as Picasso. So I thank the minister for his comments.
R. Neufeld: I was interested in the questions surrounding the equity of access to the Internet. I'm not sure of the title of it, but I think your predecessor, Mr. Harcourt, brought forward in 1994 something called the information highway for British Columbia. Many people in the lower mainland forget that access to the Internet and those kinds of things is not always commonplace in the north and in rural B.C. I'm going to talk specifically about the north.
[ Page 6528 ]
We have many areas of the province or many parts of my constituency which have absolutely no access through the Internet, simply because the telecommunication infrastructure is not in place. I had a commitment from the Premier at that time that he would look seriously at those areas of the province, and specifically the north, so that we finally get some of this through. It reminds me of the 911 initiative that the Attorney General just debated. There are many parts of my constituency where 911 will not work because there are still outdated party lines -- systems that are so antique that we can't handle the new technology.
So I'm wondering, first off, where we are with the commitment by the previous Premier on the information highway -- and I may not have the title correct, but I think the Premier knows what I'm talking about -- and how we're going to access some of my rural schools with the Internet. I have a number of them -- in fact, I can count probably three or four of them on my hand -- that have absolutely no access of that kind. I just wonder where we're at with that initiative and how we're going to deal with those rural schools, which should have access to the Internet the same as anyone else.
Hon. G. Clark: I agree with everything the member said. It's called the electronic highway accord. First of all, about a year ago the numbers were that about 60,000 British Columbians -- that's from memory -- were still on a party line, and about 20,000 had no phone at all. The people without a phone tended to be mostly aboriginal people in very remote areas of British Columbia. Clearly you can't have an answering machine, let alone a modem, if you're on a party line. We have to fix that kind of structural problem first, before we can even talk about Internet access. So I totally agree with the member.
So there are two things we've been doing on that. First, in the electronic highway accord, we've got some commitments from B.C. Tel for expansion of service and for reducing the number of party lines. That is happening. I don't have the statistics here, but there has been a fairly significant reduction in the number of people on party lines. I know that because I have a place in the Okanagan which, I was just informed, is now no longer on a party line, and my bill went up. I know that is happening.
The second thing is that we have been working on a provincial learning network through the school system to make sure that they all have access to modems, the Internet and the new technology. That has been a bit of a struggle, because the big challenge, as the member quite correctly points out, is not Vancouver, which by world standards is very advanced -- one of the most advanced cities in the world, electronically. In fact, I just recently read a speech by a futurist that pointed to Vancouver as an example of a wired city and a modern and world city, a city of the future, because of its multicultural nature as well as the nature of its infrastructure, particularly in the high-tech sector.
It's not really a problem in terms of what might be called the spine of the electronic highway, which goes up as far as Prince George and on the Island. But when you get into rural areas, as the member serves in his constituency, it is a big challenge. It's very much like gasification or rural electrification. It's extremely expensive to get the line out to some communities, and that's what is required. So that requires either a corporate commitment with some kind of cross-subsidization or some provincial subsidy. When it comes to schools, an excellent case can be made for provincial subsidy. We're prepared to do that, but obviously we want to try to find a way to minimize it, to use our purchasing power, to work with the private sector to minimize the cost, etc., and to provide some new partnerships.
That's been ongoing now for about two years, I'd say, in terms of negotiations with B.C. Tel and others to have a learning network in place. I'm sorry to report that we haven't got a resolution of that in terms of how we move forward. The minister responsible for that is the Minister of Employment and Investment. We have a new office of technology, and Phil Halkett is the deputy there. I know that he's working hard on ensuring that the learning network is up and running in a cost-effective way.
So again, there are two things. We need to work with the telephone company to provide the hardware access. That may require some commitments on the part of government to do that, and I think it does. The second thing is to use our school system to provide at least access -- if not in people's homes and in libraries -- to the Internet and new technologies using public resources. We're working on both of those, and we've made progress on both of those. I'd be happy to get the information and report it to the member.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly, the Premier brought up a few issues that I'll talk to him about later. But just to add a little bit of complication, it's not just B.C. Tel. My constituency is serviced by two major telephone companies: NorthwesTel and B.C. Tel. So it becomes a little more difficult to try and get both of those to supply service, especially along the Alaska Highway, where in Toad River we have a very small school that actually goes to grade 12. It does not have very many of the amenities that many of the other areas of the province have. It's just another thing to add to the Premier. I appreciate the response and look forward to next year, having everyone with a single line so they can have a modem and away they go. That would be great.
[5:30]
B. Penner: To pick up where we left off, we had been talking about Internet training and the Youth Mentorship program.I'm going to move now to discuss the Student Summer Works program. We also touched on that a bit earlier tonight. In summary, my notes indicate that the goal for that program is to arrive at about 3,300 student summer jobs, requiring a $6.2 million wage subsidy from the taxpayer. I'm told that the emphasis is for the jobs to be directly related to careers. I'm not sure how that's defined or what kinds of criteria the government actually employs there.
I do have some concern about how the employers would go about accessing information and applying for the wage subsidy that's offered under this program. The reason I say that is because according to information obtained -- again, off the Internet -- the would-be employers are supposed to find out information and apply for this program from what's called community host agencies. There are nine such agencies listed. They're not, at least in my mind, always intuitive places where a business person would go to find information about this kind of a program.
Let's say you had a clothing store or a sporting goods store in south Vancouver, and you wanted to apply for a program so you could hire a student for the summer. The place you're supposed to go and apply is the B.C. Horticultural Coalition -- to me that's not an obvious place to go and apply for that kind of a program. Similarly, in Vancouver, the place to go is the Science Council of B.C., located in Burnaby. Again, I'm a little bit puzzled by the location of these centres where employers are supposed to go and apply for information. Turning to the northwest, it's the cooperative
[ Page 6529 ]
education department of Northwest Community College -- perhaps that one makes a bit more sense. I'm just a little bit puzzled by the logic for these various host agencies: why these particular places to get information about this provincial government employment program?
Hon. G. Clark: I will grant you that in some ways you could criticize, as you have, in terms of where to go. But I am very pleased with the way this has been managed. Rather than the government setting up Student Summer Works programs, they essentially tried to get host agencies to manage the program in their area.
So you're quite correct. The B.C. Horticultural Coalition put together what I'm advised is an excellent program. Clearly they're the host agency, so there is a bias there for horticultural companies. That's intended, because in the Fraser Valley that's generally a big employer, and it's one that put together a good proposal. Their bias is there; they can access a lot of businesses to get access to this program. In the course of being the host agency, they agreed that they would also manage the program in areas that are non-traditional for them, and by all accounts they are doing a very good job.
Similarly in Dawson Creek. It was the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce that came forward with the best proposal to manage for the northeast corner of the province for the Science Council of B.C. What we tried to do with the host agency, because it's Student Summer Works, was get students experience in their area of interest or education. I think using the B.C. Horticultural Coalition or the Science Council is a good thing, albeit it means that a clothing manufacturer in Chilliwack may not get access to this funding to hire young people in their area or may be slightly less likely. It seems to me that's true of whatever you do, unless the government runs the program itself. So we chose these host agencies, and we monitor it carefully. I have to say that from staff reports and my own sort of anecdotal evidence, it has been very, very positive in terms of the way they've managed it.
They have skewed the programs in the areas that they are the host for, if you will, but I think that's fine; that's part of it. If government wants to have a bit more emphasis on clothing manufacturers in Chilliwack, then the government should probably choose a different host agency. But we felt that this host was a good choice for the Fraser Valley. Young people might want to move into that business in taking agricultural degrees, etc., and have access to the program.
B. Penner: I can accept that rationale provided by the Premier. When I first looked at it, though, I have to be honest: I was quite puzzled. I'm not suggesting that the province go out and construct stand-alone offices around our province simply to coordinate this program. Of course, the Premier would be aware that we do have government agent offices throughout British Columbia, now called B.C. access centres. I would have thought that initially that would be the logical place to require employers to go to get information about a student summer employment program and subsidies for that program.
However, if it is the intention of the provincial government to try and steer employment into certain sectors of the economy, then I suppose that is the government's prerogative. I do appreciate that explanation from the Premier about what the rationale is.
Reviewing some of the background information about the Student Summer Works program, I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to find that amongst those employers that are eligible to apply for the wage subsidy are Crown corporations. Crown corporations are a separate component of the job creation strategy under the Guarantee for Youth, called the Crown youth employment initiative. Under that title, about 3,500 young people are supposed to be given jobs. However, when you go to the Student Summer Works program and you look at the background documents, you find out that Crown corporations can also go there and apply for wage subsidies.
I wonder if the Premier has any statistics or information as to how many of the jobs that the Student Summer Works program is supposed to create are actually coming from Crown corporations that have applied for that wage subsidy, again noting that 3,300 summer jobs in total are supposed to be created through Student Summer Works. If he does have that information available, perhaps include what the total value of that wage subsidy is through the Crown corporations.
Hon. G. Clark: I have to ask the member to clarify. If the member is asking if there's double-counting of the numbers, the answer is that there's none. The only place where there could be some, inadvertently, would be in something like the PNE, which creates thousands of jobs and a lot of them are private businesses on the PNE site. There is central hiring, etc., but I suppose -- just so I'm not caught later -- that there's a chance. I think it's almost zero, but I suppose there's a chance that someone
You know, the B.C. Horticultural Coalition, which has the garden at the PNE or something, might be able to hire a student and have Summer Works apply, but I think it's very obscure. We have tried to ensure that there's no double-counting in any of the statistics, so any jobs created by the Crown corporations are over and above those created by Student Summer Works. If it's not the case, first of all, I'll make sure it's the case in the future, and secondly, I'll report back to the member. But I'm advised there's no double-counting.
B. Penner: The Premier again anticipated where I was going with that question. That was my initial suspicion -- that perhaps there was an opportunity for some double-counting, given that there's a separate program for the Crown corporations to create jobs, and then on the other hand, Crown corporations are able to apply for subsidy under Summer Student Works.
Sorry, but I didn't hear if the Premier had that information at his fingertips. How many of those 3,300 jobs under Student Summer Works are actually with the Crown corporations?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't have that information, but I think the answer is none. Remember that those host agencies are there. We just mentioned the Horticultural Society and the Science Council. If there are any, they're over and above the target for Crown corporations, but I don't believe they access them because there's an oversupply, if you will, of Student Summer Works. But if they do access them, I'll get the information for the member, and I'll make sure there's no double-counting in the process.
B. Penner: I'd appreciate it if the Premier would do that.
I notice again, in looking at the background information dealing with this Student Summer Works program, that there is mention to the employers that if they use less than the
[ Page 6530 ]
maximum hourly wage subsidy, their application will be viewed more favourably than those who require the full subsidy.
That makes sense, because the less money that's used on a given job means there's more money for creating additional jobs. I'm wondering -- and again it's just my own curiosity -- how many private sector employers are utilizing less than the maximum $4 per hour wage subsidy. Are we being successful in encouraging the private sector to use this wage subsidy sparingly, and how many additional jobs does that allow us to sponsor for students?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, my staff have just sent a note saying: "Are Crown corporations receiving a subsidy under the Student Summer Works program? The answer is no." There is no double-counting, so they're not eligible or they did not apply.
With respect to the last question, I can find that information for you, but appreciate this is an ongoing
Again, even though we gave preference to less than the maximum subsidy, we also wanted to try to make sure the programs were relevant to their work experience, if we could, to give priority to people for jobs that would give training that might lead to further employment down the road, etc. It's a multiple-of-account kind of evaluation, of which the cost is a significant one but not the only one.
B. Penner: This leads to my final area of questioning on the Student Summer Works program. What is the requirement in terms of the length of the job in order to qualify for the subsidy? How many weeks does it have to be to be counted as a summer job? Is it, as some have speculated, just a matter of days to qualify as one job, or does it have to be for 12 weeks, for example, covering most of the summer? I'll sit down and await the answer.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, the minimum is 150 hours work.
B. Penner: Applying my rudimentary mathematics obtained with great struggle in grade 10, that tells me it would be something less than four weeks of full-time employment to count as one job under the Student Summer Works program. So I thank the Premier for that clarification.
We were talking earlier about the Internet. I'm sorry to jump around a little bit in terms of topics, but I do want to go back to the issue of the Youth web page. Again, last year in our discussions we were talking about how to get the information or the message out to young people about what programs are there and what opportunities are available to them. I think we agreed here that expanded use of the Internet would be one way to go about it.
Since that time, I know that the province of British Columbia, through the Premier's Office, has established a specific Youth web page which I think -- at least graphically speaking -- is very appealing. I think it has gotten a fair bit of attention, and justifiably so, because of its appearance, I guess, and the interest that it attracts from young people and others.
I know that there was perhaps some discussion or controversy earlier this year about the cost of that service and whether or not it was put out to private tender. I just wonder if the Premier could give us a kind of overview of what the cost was in terms of setting up that web site and what the ongoing maintenance cost is.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'm very proud of the Premier's "A Voice for Youth" web page. We had the second annual Premier's Youth Forum; the title of it was "A Voice for Youth." People said they needed this information and they wanted more of it, so we started the youth web site. We used a B.C. company called Imediat Digital, an outstanding, award-winning company, to design the web page.
The web page has been given several sorts of awards: Pick of the Week by Yahoo Canada -- which is a search engine, of course -- and Site of the Day by Canuck. That is an organization specifically created to promote excellence in Canadian web page design and innovation. We're getting very positive feedback. As of June 30, we received 10,021 hits or visits on the web page, so it's quite successful and very, very positive.
Frankly, I think it needs more promotion and more support. That will just grow as we work things out and make sure we have the staffing there, because it's meant to be interactive and responsive as we move along. We want to make sure we've got the staff there to answer the questions that are raised by young people.
The total cost, including startup and working through things, was $23,000 for the web page. The cost of maintenance, I'm sure, will be there. I don't know what the number is, but it will be fairly modest. There's constantly people who are suggesting hyperlinks to other web pages and ways in which we can make it even more user-friendly.
I've had some criticisms and so have young people about the forum piece. I don't know if you've looked at the web page. You know that they can ask the Premier questions, and you have to kind of go through a couple of steps to get to ask the questions. I think it's a bit cumbersome, so it may be that we can put a button on the home page which would go right to "Ask the Premier a Question," etc., rather than have to go through "School Zone" and "Premier's Forum" and "Job Zone" and the like -- if you're following me; if there's anybody that's taken a look at it. That will require some maintenance and some investment. I mean, you can tell. The whole thing cost $23,000, so it's fairly modest.
[5:45]
In terms of maintenance, the key, as well, is that we have a staff person, Sarah Hilbert. I'm sorry, she has a new name now; she's just been married. She's a young woman who works for the Premier's Youth Office and does superb work. She's doing a lot of the information, because people are asking for information. They're asking for answers; they're asking questions of the Premier. She's a young person in my office that sort of isWhat I'd like to do is make sure that we promote the web page to all high school students so that they can ask questions of the government and give advice to the government. Once we do that, we're liable to get from 20,000 to 50,000 young
[ Page 6531 ]
people coming and visiting. I think that's a good thing, but it does mean that we'll probably need another staff person or so just to make sure that the answers are timely. And that's a bad thing, but it seems to me that's indicative of success. So as it becomes more successful and more people are aware of it and we keep refining it so that it's more and more user-friendly, and adding text and adding opportunities for more interaction, we will need slightly greater costs, it seems to me, both in the maintenance of the web page and in the staff dedicated to responding to the needs of users of the web page.
B. Penner: Thanks to the Premier for that answer.
I would appreciate receiving the information about the ongoing maintenance fees or cost for the web site. I'm not arguing about the $23,000 startup cost, because from my limited experience with web sites, that sounds fairly modest for the fairly ambitious scope of the web site. I have visited it; in fact, I was touring through it today, getting ready for estimates tonight.
I'm aware of the hour, but there are two issues I'd like to raise with the Premier before we adjourn for the dinner break, because I think they're fairly serious, both having to do with the Premier's Youth web page.
First of all, the Premier mentioned that about 10,000 people have accessed the site as of, I believe, June 1997. That's a pretty tremendous rate of access. I've had questions directed to me about whether or not
With any site, there's some concern that it's possible for the host to keep track of who's using it, basically compile a database of all the visitors to that site and then perhaps sell that database -- as a mailing list, as you would in days gone by -- or use it in other ways. I'm just looking for some assurance from the Premier that that's not going to take place with the Youth web site and that our youth will be protected from any misuse of their web site identity or e-mail address and identity that way. That's one concern I have, and I'm fairly serious about that.
The second thing -- and perhaps I'm treading on a bit of thin ice here, but I do feel it's important enough that I will raise it
In perusing the various links offered under the Premier's Youth web page, I was concerned about one link under the title "Youth and Sexuality." The only link under that title is called the "Youth Assistance Organization." If you click on that site, it deals strictly with issues dealing with homosexuality -- no other kinds of relationship issues or problems faced by heterosexual youth. More troubling when you go into that site is that there are places to connect to chat lines. Specifically, there's a title, "How to Connect with Other Gay or Lesbian Individuals." My concern, speaking on behalf of our young people, is that adults from across North America who find this site could use it as a way to connect with and perhaps -- and I hope this isn't the case -- exploit our young people in a way that we as a province simply can't tolerate.
I am concerned about that. I am drawing it to the Premier's attention here tonight, because I'm not sure if that's really appropriate under the Premier's Youth web site because of the dangerous potential, I think, for adults using it in a way that clearly is not something we would support. We've all heard the stories through the popular media about young people corresponding via the Internet and somehow being seduced by adults and taken advantage of. This gave me particular concern today when I saw it.
So those are my two concerns: the tracking or collecting of addresses of people that communicate to the Premier through his web site and also this particular link and the potential hazard it poses to our young people.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, with respect to the privacy question, I agree with the member. We certainly have no desire, no inclination and no chance to use the kind of sophisticated software to find out who is making the hits on the web site. Anybody that corresponds with us provides their e-mail address; we will have their address there either for future use or for electronic correspondence with respect to the information that they have asked for, if we can be helpful. In order to find out who's accessing a site requires very sophisticated surveillance technology, which we wouldn't do -- we will not do. It would be completely inappropriate, and we probably wouldn't be allowed to do it under the Privacy Act. And if we are allowed to do it, we shouldn't be allowed to do it. So I hope I can put that at ease.
With respect to the last point, I take the member's comments very seriously. I'll be happy to look into it. As you know, the Internet
I'm reluctant to get into a kind of censorship debate here around what we should and shouldn't be doing on the Internet, because once you're on there it is, of course, wide open. The opportunities for censorship are ones which are very interesting and worthwhile pursuing -- I'm not trying to say that they aren't -- but ones which, frankly, I don't think we are going to resolve with the Premier's web page.
I'll take a look at the information you've suggested, and I will look to see whether it should be augmented with further information or whether in fact this is appropriate, even though it doesn't have any government sanction. It's simply almost a kind of resource service in terms of giving people immediate access to the kinds of information which might be helpful.
Lastly, just on that, we have been trying to listen to young people and respond to their concerns, so they've had a lot of input into the web page through sort of an advisory group on the youth forum and otherwise. So it's quite possible that the reason this particular resource is there is because young people requested it, and we've tried to be responsive in building the web page and the opportunities for access to input from a broad cross-section of British Columbians. So I'll have to look into that as well.
B. Penner: I'm noting the hour, but I'll just leave the final comment with the Premier. I guess my concern is
[ Page 6532 ]
course we can't censor the Internet. I don't believe personally in the validity of that, because I don't think it's going to work, frankly. I think any attempts to censor something usually has the opposite effect, and it draws more attention to the very thing they were trying to keep people from entertaining themselves with. But given that this is a web page specifically aimed at young people -- it's the youth web page -- it does give me that concern, and I felt motivated to raise the concern.
On that note, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A reported resolutions.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 7:30 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.
The committee met at 2:46 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)
S. Hawkins: I have an issue that I want to canvass with the minister. Parts of it have probably been canvassed in these estimates already, and the minister can correct me if I go into territory that's already been canvassed. It's an issue that's quite at the forefront of people's minds in my community, and that's child apprehension. There have been some high-profile type cases that have been recognized by media in the last week or so, so I have been asked to raise them here. I guess the first thing I'd like to ask the minister is: under the Child, Family and Community Services Act, section 34, it says: "No later than 7 days after a child is removed" from the home there has to be a presentation hearing. Then, under section 37, it says that within 45 days there has to be a protection hearing -- or earlier, if we can fit that in.
I understand that oftentimes these cases are settled through mediation. I don't know if there are time limits for the mediation, but in the one specific case that's been reported in Kelowna, the child was apprehended about a week ago, and the earliest date for mediation is October 14. I know the minister is concerned for children, as are we on this side of the House, and I know that we try to act in the best interests of the child. With the stress and reorganization of the ministry, I know that the workers in the field feel compelled to act perhaps even more carefully -- or are a lot more aware -- and try to act in the best interests of the child, but these delays and these waits for court proceedings -- and these positions we get into with not having enough court time or not having enough mediation time -- and not having enough workers out there seems to be kind of unfair and not in the best interests of the child.
I understand Bill 24 was debated earlier today, and perhaps the minister can enlighten me and tell me how that might affect this and what the ministry is trying to do to phase out these court backups and extended periods of time that I don't think are in the best interests of the child or the family.
Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, I guess. One of them is that that is the reason we have put into our own legislation the ability for us to be able to do mediation. There is mediation that goes on currently. It's actually done under the court system, not under us. We understand the kinds of delays that can sometimes occur, so our purpose for putting our ability to do mediation into the act is to try to address some of these issues where it does indeed take longer. So you're correct, that is what the act was for.
S. Hawkins: I understand, as well, that the stats in Kelowna for child apprehensions have risen quite considerably. Between October of '95 and March of this year, the ministry provincially increased the number of kids from 6,900 to 8,200 and in Kelowna, from 320 to 490 -- a rise of over 50 percent. I wonder if the minister can account for this. Why are the numbers increasing?
Hon. P. Priddy: Just sort of one point of clarification. I needed to be listening more carefully, perhaps, at the beginning. Was it two years?
S. Hawkins: Yes.
Hon. P. Priddy: We know that if you look back from 1994 to now, in the late eighties, early nineties, it was fairly flat -- not just in Kelowna, by the way, but in other parts of the province, although there are some places where it's down, as well.
When we had the tragedy around Matthew's life and when the Gove inquiry was going on, you start to see an increase at that time. You see an increase in a variety of parts of the province, and you see it for several reasons. One of them was that you do, indeed, start to see it, simply -- it's hardly simply -- because of the heightened awareness, because of all of the issues that were talked about in the Gove report. Secondly, we do see some fluxes at certain times of the year. The beginning and end of school, for some reason, tends to bring some changes in the figures as well. Thirdly, the risk assessment training, which has been going on in the province with social workers
I believe that Gove, additional training and the kind of
[ Page 6533 ]
raised that -- in communities where there have been particular tragedies, and there has been one in yours, also. If I look around the province at tragedies that have received a lot of media coverage, then I will see actually a somewhat more significant increase in those areas, as well. Those are some of the reasons we're seeing the increases.
S. Hawkins: Did the ministry foresee that as a result of Gove and a result of the changes that they were actually going to see this increase in apprehension of children?
Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to check with people who were actually there at the time, in terms of what the actual discussion was. Yes, certainly post-Gove and the report coming out there was an expectation that that might happen simply because of the recommendations -- the awareness, etc. One of the policy responses to that, if you will, was the hiring, within a period of 12 months, of 325 additional child protection social workers, all of whom have -- we've canvassed that before -- bachelor of social work degrees, plus additional training in child protection. So there was some anticipation of that, yes.
S. Hawkins: I want to note again for the minister that it appears from that two-year period we were talking about -- from October of '95 to March of this year -- the provincial average was around an 18 percent increase in apprehensions. In Kelowna we saw a 53 percent increase. That's a heck of a lot higher. I can appreciate the fact that there's an increased awareness with Matthew Vaudreuil. Certainly there was another very, very sad and unfortunate death of a child earlier this year in the community, as well.
I can appreciate the fact, you know, that where there are tragedies, yes, people are going to be more careful, but that just seems to be awfully high. I'm wondering if I indeed have the statistics correct, because I am getting them from the news report. From what the reporter tells me, the ministry couldn't give him the exact number of children in care that were apprehended from the Kelowna office, so I would appreciate that information. I'm wondering what we're doing. Is the ministry concerned about that? Are they looking at that situation? Is that office getting more support? Why is it different from the provincial average?
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know how much of this we want to do in estimates and how much we might wish to do afterwards. But I do have the numbers for Kelowna. Of course, sometimes the collecting isn't about
I'll tell you the other place where we're seeing an increase. I'm not sure if you're separating out apprehensions from other ways children come into care, because one of the things we have noticed -- and I think we canvassed this in other places -- is that we actually have a larger portion
The other thing I would say is that of the three areas of the province where we've seen the highest increase, one of them is indeed your area -- I think partly because of one instance, but also partly because Matthew lived for a time in Vernon. Also, there's the Kootenays, where Katie Lynn was, and the North Peace, because Matthew spent part of his life in the North Peace, as well. Those are the three areas where we've seen the highest increases.
[3:00]
S. Hawkins: I can appreciate the fact that parents will come sometimes and say: "I can't handle this anymore. Please help." But there are parents that say: "This isn't right. We don't think we've done anything wrong. We want our day in court. We want justice soon." I'm thinking of the case of Ms. Weir, who is pregnant and her child has been apprehended. The ministry phoned her doctor and apparently asked how much stress she could handle. Of course, the obvious answer is not very much: she's due to have another baby any day now. This is not a parent, I guess, who's saying: "Take this child. I can't handle it anymore." This is a parent who is saying that my child has developmental learning disabilities or whatever, and I want to be able to prove that I am a good mother. If she is a good mother -- and I'm not saying that she's not -- then the best interest of the child is to try and get that family back together.There's another story, I guess, on the heels of that one about parents with a child that was breaking into the house. It's the Coschik family. The children were apprehended because the oldest child claimed that the father had beaten him. Now you've got a situation where the family has a child that is perhaps a little bit of a renegade, if I can use that word. He's apparently pulled the story a few times before and recanted. But this time he was taken into custody, and the other children were taken in, as well. Again, you've got a family that's saying: "We've had trouble with this child; we want it investigated."
But the period of time for investigations and hearings is way too long. Hopefully, the bill that the minister introduced today will provide some relief. But I'm wondering if you sort between the cases of parents that come before you for help. Are they dealt with quicker than the parents whose children are taken away without their consent? I'm just wondering whether the ministry does differentiate. Do you keep stats on whether a case where a parent comes to you for help is sorted out sooner than a case where the child is apprehended? Are there stats on how quickly the cases are resolved between the two?
Hon. P. Priddy: That would vary very much from family to family. But I think two issues are primary in this. If you have a family who has come to you asking for assistance, then you're not in a position of having to go to court. We will, whenever possible
S. Hawkins: With all due respect, the minister sits at the same cabinet table with the Attorney General, and perhaps
[ Page 6534 ]
that's an issue that she could raise with him, as well, if the ministry is concerned about the backlogs and everything. I'm sure it was canvassed by our critic. We know that there are backlogs for all kinds of cases in the court system right now. I would say that children should be a priority: hopefully, the minister is canvassing that with the Attorney General himself.
I will go back and read Hansard on the discussion around the bill this morning, because I'm most interested in that. Then perhaps I'll contact the ministry if I have further questions on that issue.
I'm also interested in the people who are used to making these assessments. I believe the ministry uses psychologists and psychiatrists to help determine whether a child and a family are a good fit and are ready to go back. I'm wondering what psychiatrists and sessionals get -- an hourly wage or a sessional wage -- under this ministry's guidelines?
Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of sessional costs for psychiatrists, it's approximately $350 a session, and for general practitioners, approximately $250 a session.
S. Hawkins: And how does the ministry go about recruiting these people, or deciding who is going to work on a case?
Hon. P. Priddy: I always worry when my deputy goes: "Hmm." What is intended and what does happen is that the ministry and the family need to agree on who that psychiatrist or psychologist -- or whatever the situation might be -- will be, because otherwise, in the end, if it's somebody the family cannot support, then you have lost, in many ways, the opportunities to be able to implement that. For the most part, that's how it happens.
S. Hawkins: Is there any kind of guideline set up for conflict or anything like that with these people. If there was the psychiatrist who knew the family, is he automatically exempted from working on this case, even though the family would agree or the ministry would agree or not agree? Is there a guideline set up that way?
Hon. P. Priddy: In most circumstances, if that is somebody that the family can support, that is somebody that we would approve. However, I would think that if you had a psychiatrist or psychologist who was particularly close to the family as a friend, they would actually disqualify themselves.
M. Coell: Over the last few days we've gone through the new ministry program by program, finishing off last night with caseloads and risk assessment. I just want to say that I appreciate the briefings that the ministry has given opposition members. It has been very helpful and, I think, very educational for us, as well, as a group. In dealing with the estimates, I've tried to go through it systematically, and what I've done now is just go back over what I intended to cover. I have a number of areas that I have missed that I would like to take an opportunity to deal with at this point. Again, I do appreciate the staff involvement from the ministry.
One of the areas regarding child safety that the ministry undertook was a report by Ross Dawson on high-risk children. I just wonder whether the minister has received that report at this point, or if I could have a status report on that.
Hon. P. Priddy: Just to be clear, there actually are two. We actually chose to do two areas of the province, although probably the attention was focused on the capital. We also chose to do the Peace River-Liard area because we wanted to see a rural community as well as an urban community. The one in the north is, I think, about a week from us seeing it in its draft form. The writing for the one for the capital region is, I think, almost finished, and the deputy would expect to see it within the next week or two.
M. Coell: My understanding is that these two reports would be made public when they are completed.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I see no reason why not. I actually think I said that at the time, and I see no reason to change my statement.
M. Coell: I look forward to reading them. I think that they may be very focused, and having the ability to look at a rural area is positive as well.
The ministry set out to do an upgrade program for people who didn't have BSWs within the ministry. Now, my understanding is that that has not gone ahead, that it did start and then stopped. If it's going ahead, I would be interested in an update on that, and then I have some questions with regard to the areas which that upgrade will cover.
Hon. P. Priddy: No, the program is going ahead. I actually had one of the media ask me the same thing. It's actually in the budget with real people and real numbers, and maybe just for your interest I can let you know that. We are currently supporting 83 employees in the concentrated BSW program, and we expect 75 more to enter the program. We're looking at ways of doing this in 1997-98. The only thing that we have said is that this is $125,000 a person, so it is very expensive. So we are looking at whether there are other ways to do it. Can we do more through distance education? Are there other kinds of ways to do this? But no, it's in the budget, and 75 more people will start this year.
M. Coell: Is it a one-year program? I guess it would depend on the education level of the applicant; if you had someone with a BA, I believe you could complete a BSW in two years. Is there a mixed bag here, where you've got a number of different education levels all entering the system at the same time?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is; the member is correct. There is certainly some mix, although many people do have, for instance, BAs or BEds, as opposed to the BSW, in which case the training is ten months. But yes, you are right: if the training is less, then they would require a longer length of time. We would tailor that both to what their paper training is, if you will -- sorry, that sounds like a puppy -- their educational training and upgrading, and what their experience has been.
M. Coell: Is the ministry specifically looking at the type of person they're starting off with in the training -- that they would be doing the ten-month program as opposed to someone who just had grade 12 and a lot of experience and managed to get a social worker's job? And also
Hon. P. Priddy: He saw everybody sort of hovering in on me.
[3:15]
[ Page 6535 ]
I'm afraid the answer I gave was the one that I just thought was logical; therefore, I'll go back and correct it -- or the one I'm most experienced with, I guess. There is not a prior learning assessment done, which is, I guess, the one I'm most familiar with in terms of my own professional career. What we're now looking at is doing a prior learning assessment. You know, a lot of people who may have done a BA 20 years ago have also done all kinds of courses and upgrading along the way, in which case I think we will be able toM. Coell: What dollar figure is there in the budget for this program this year?
Hon. P. Priddy: It's $8.78 million.
M. Coell: That will put 83 people through the program this year, if it's $125,000 a person. I'm trying in my own mind to understand where that $125,000 is going.
Hon. P. Priddy: So were we. What that particular amount will do -- and I'll speak to the cost -- is finish the 83 employees who will finish in November. There's some sort of half-year or five- or six-month overlap. Then it will cover the next 75 employees who are entering that.
If part of your question is -- and I think it is, so I may as well answer it now -- why does it cost $125,000 a person, I'd actually be quite happy to answer that. What you're really looking at in that case is the salary of the person doing the course -- the tuition, travel, books, etc. -- and then the backfill -- unless you're prepared to simply leave all those positions open, which doesn't work very well.
M. Coell: So for each one of these 83 people who are on course now, we have hired someone to replace them. Are they permanent or are they auxiliary positions?
Hon. P. Priddy: To the very best of my understanding, we have replaced everybody, and they are auxiliaries.
M. Coell: The number of social workers that were hired by the province, I believe, was 320-some-odd. Are these 83 auxiliaries part of that number?
Hon. P. Priddy: No. The 325 who were hired are permanent parts of our ministry. The 83 that were hired for backfill were for that purpose only, so that's why they were auxiliaries. No, they are not part of the 325 number.
M. Coell: The qualifications of the 83 -- do they have the minimum requirement of a BSW or MSW?
Hon. P. Priddy: You're asking about the qualifications of the people doing the backfill?
M. Coell: Yes.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are BSWs.
M. Coell: The training of social workers. There was a training centre in Richmond, which I believe has been closed down, that was used for sessional training programs, two- to three-day programs and one-week programs. Where is the training that took place in that facility to take place, or is it not to take place?
Hon. P. Priddy: The training institute has been closed over the summer. We will be doing some work there this fall.
I would also suggest that we need to look much harder at other training facilities around the province. I mean, if you live in Kaslo
M. Coell: Could the minister assure me that the training programs that were being given to social workers and child protection workers will continue, that they may continue in different venues?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will. We have made this commitment around the concentrated BSW and around other kinds of additional training.
I do want to make a comment here, because I have been talking to the directors of social work at the universities. I mean, people graduate with BSWs, they come to work for this ministry and then we provide five months -- almost half a year -- of additional training, which is at our expense, while we pay salary, while there aren't FTEs, necessarily, out in the field to cover that. So I would suggest that we are looking at a different way to be able to do that part of it with the universities, but yes, the training will continue.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for that commitment, because I think that's an important one. Ongoing training was something that the Gove inquiry was very strong on -- ongoing training for people who had been there longer than ten and 15 years. It's my understanding that the Nanaimo office, which delivers child protection, is expecting to lay off social workers and child protection workers in the fall. They have hired people this year. I wonder if the minister could comment on the likelihood of layoffs of child protection workers in the ministry.
Hon. P. Priddy: We'll obviously go back and check because you've asked the question, but five people just said no to me. On a significant level, no, they don't know anything about that; there's no plan to do that. But, you know, that never means that you don't go back and check, so we will. But no, we are totally unaware of any plan to do that.
M. Coell: I guess my concern would be that we've got to these staffing levels, I think with some agreement on all sides in the Legislature. I just want to make sure before we leave here for the summer that those staffing levels are intended to remain for the rest of the year.
One area that I've had a number of calls and letters on in the last two weeks is youth who leave home -- at age 14, it seems to be. All of the youth that I have dealt with have been female, and for the most part they have ended up on the streets of Vancouver. The parents have been told by police and
[ Page 6536 ]
by social workers that there isn't much that they can do, that a 14- or 15-year-old can leave home. They do end up on the street.
I think this is a pretty critical part of the ministry. I know it is a difficult situation to deal with, and I would like to just spend a few moments canvassing with the minister what the ministry does in situations like this.
To add to that, my belief is that these families are not particularly dysfunctional. The kids have just, for whatever reason, decided that it's a lot more fun and exciting to end up on the street this summer. I guess the problem that I see is that after spending a summer on the street, they may not go home. I wonder what the ministry's policy is when confronted with the issue of a 14- or 15-year-old girl, for the most part, who hits the streets of Vancouver -- or any city, for that matter.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member has asked a really relevant question but also a very difficult question. You're right: you can't make a 14-year-old go home. I suppose at some other stage we could all have an ethical debate about whether there should be things like mandatory treatment and mandatory confinement and all those sorts of things. I've seen articles and heard people make that argument, but we don't have an ability to do that. I think most of the research has shown that mandatory isn't all that effective, whether it's with youth or with adults.
The most successful program we have in terms of actually helping kids return home and stay there is the Reconnect program. I say that for a couple of reasons. One of them is that Reconnect is really seen as successful on the streets. It's seen as a place that youth trust. It's also virtually all over the province. It's targeted at youth from 12 to 19, so it does hit that early group of youth you were talking about -- the young women who are on the street. It also keeps them safe in whatever ways they can with street intervention, support, counselling or referral to appropriate services. We do have parent-teen mediation services that can assist youth and families trying to work that through. In some cases that works, and in some cases it doesn't. For all of us who have raised teenagers, we know that this is not an easy task for anybody, regardless of the family.
The other thing we've done -- and I think this is very useful -- is we now have a youth team because of the reorganization of the ministry. We will have a youth strategy for me to take to cabinet by this fall, because we now have a far greater ability to have workers who are working with youth. But at this stage, it's primarily the service I spoke of and we can't
[3:30]
M. Coell: I wonder whether we have a written ministry policy with regard to children 14, 15 and 16. I'd also be interested in whether we have a written policy on how we deal with runaway children ten to 14? Are they different policies, or is it the same policy on how we treat the different ages?Hon. P. Priddy: There is a policy around runaway children, and it's actually in the act. It allows us to take responsibility, at least, for three days for that child who runs away. Secondly, there is no difference in terms of if the child is ten or 12 or 14, and that will be one of the issues that the youth team is looking at in terms of their strategy for the ministry.
M. Coell: I would hope the ministry, through its youth team, would look at this area, because there doesn't seem to be any way of keeping children off the streets for their own safety. If I thought that a 13- or 14-year-old child had the mental capabilities of looking after themselves, I wouldn't worry about it. But that's clearly not the case. They're really victimized, and I think there needs to be something so that children can be protected for their own sake. When you're looking at ten through 16, some kids can be very mature at 16, and others can be very immature and maybe not even have the faculties to decide day-to-day living. So I hope the team will look at that and make some recommendations, and I think you'd find that it would be widely supported in the community, as well as in the Legislature.
B. McKinnon: Over the last year I've talked to quite a few social workers and some supervisors. One of the big concerns they have, which they find is happening more and more, is that the ministry itself isn't giving them any means of protection. They don't feel their working conditions are safe. They say that the ministry has created a work environment that's not healthy and that it spills over into their personal lives with stress, sickness and high turnover. If you don't take care of and sustain the people who work for you, you will lose a valuable resource. These workers say that they feel abused and that there's increased violence in their work area -- they have regular violent episodes in offices. What is needed is for the person in distress to have time.
They're also very concerned when the Premier himself makes statements on high-profile cases in the papers and says that heads will roll. So they don't feel any trust or support from the people who should be giving them help and support, and what they know and hear is what they read in the papers. My question to the minister is: what does the ministry do to help the worker feel protected?
Hon. P. Priddy: What I'll try and do is give you a bit of a range, and then I'll comment on your other comment.
We have a security review going on of all of our offices in terms of the physical safety of those offices. We all know that in designing offices, stores, etc., there are things you can do that actually provide more physical safety or reduce the likelihood of someone being hurt. So we've initiated security reviews of all of our offices in the province. We're in the process of buying either cellular phones -- or radio car phones in some cases, because for some of us urbanites, cell phones don't work everywhere in the province -- so that if a worker needs to call, they can do that. Our policy is that if a worker is going out at night to a family, they don't go alone. They most often, actually, will go with the police so that they're not going out there doing that alone. Plus we have protocols with the police around violent incidents in offices.
Let me just shift that over a little bit and talk about
[ Page 6537 ]
social workers, one from each region in the province, who are meeting on a regular basis to say: "On a day-to-day basis in my office, this is how it can be better." As a result of their feedback -- and they're continuing to meet -- we've actually already made some changes.
B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to hear that there is something being done. A lot of the violence I was talking about was actually the ministry staff themselves doing the violence. That the stress load and the workload
My other question: I was going to ask if you were going to invest in cell phones and computers and that sort of thing for your workers to help make the job easier.
Hon. P. Priddy: While we're checking one figure, I will go back
Yes, we are doing both computers and cell phones. We are spending, in 1997-98, $800,000 on either cell phones or car phones -- as I say, depending on what works where you are -- and $5 million on personal computers, including laptops, etc. For many workers it makes a huge difference -- I'm not sure so much in urban areas, but in rural areas, not to have to drive another 150 miles back to your office to file a report or to do whatever, to be able to do that by computer, just makes an enormous difference. So we're spending $5 million on that this year.
B. McKinnon: I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, when I was not here, but I'll ask it anyway and you can let me know. One of the other concerns out there was that the ministry needed to have a quicker response to mentally ill children and when the parents themselves are mentally ill. They need more time with people whom we have processed to allow adequate time to work out the protocols -- that is, who is going to do what -- before people are all thrown together. They feel that the response time isn't quick enough when we have mentally handicapped children belonging to mentally handicapped parents.
Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to clarify whether we're talking about mentally handicapped parents with children or mentally ill parents with children. Because the issue is different and they're handled very differently.
B. McKinnon: Sorry, it was mentally ill.
Hon. P. Priddy: While recognizing that there is undoubtedly more work that can be done for those particular situations, we have crisis response and/or hospital liaison workers that have been established in mental health centres to coordinate with the 27 regional hospital psychiatric units that are serving either psychiatrically ill children, youth or families.
[3:45]
B. McKinnon: A supervisor herself is expected to be available to consult with workers on critical points in cases where there is a removal of the child. They're supposed to look at the overall function of the office and make sure that there's a safe work environment, monitor budgets and do all the things associated with training new staff. They have a whole list of duties that they have to do.One of the complaints I had from a supervisor was that they don't have time. They are far too busy to even get through the list of things that they have to in order to do all their jobs and were very concerned about when the ministry was going to add more staff. They said it was very difficult to function and get their jobs done in the way the ministry expects them to do their job when they don't have adequate hours in a day to do all this work. Can the minister respond to that at all?
Hon. P. Priddy: I will be able to offer the member further information, I think, by fall. That is specifically one of the issues that is being looked at in the workload-caseload review: supervisors, their responsibilities and their ability to do their job. So it's a specific part of the review.
B. McKinnon: One of the other concerns is that the ministry gets these social workers, spends all the money that they do on training, and they get into the field and find that they work long hours. Then they get offered a job from another ministry in which they don't have to spend the time, and their pay is better and that's their thing. She says that the turnover of staff is very great, because they get the training in the Children's ministry, and then they go off into another ministry with better pay and better hours.
Hon. P. Priddy: I am pleased to answer the question; we spoke a little bit about it before. Our turnover rate last year was 6 percent. That may make it, obviously, higher than some offices and lower than other offices. I was just checking with the deputy. In business and industry it tends to be about 4 percent. So, given the nature of the work, 6 percent
B. McKinnon: Just a final question of concern out there that there wasn't enough staff to give summer relief, or that backfill was just absolutely none. When staff leave to go on holidays, there is no one to look after their files, and so they are just generally ignored. They always felt like they were dealing with a crisis -- no time for planning. At the same time, the remark, again, of the Premier saying "heads must roll," and that sort of thing
Hon. P. Priddy: We've hired 50 social workers for the summer for backfill, which I'm told will cover most of the relief that is necessary. But it's one of the things that the workload review is looking at, because some offices manage differently. So we're looking at how offices actually manage that. Some seem to manage very well; some have more difficulties. We don't know yet if that's because of the management style or the caseload, or whatever that might be. But that's also being looked at as part of the review.
[ Page 6538 ]
V. Anderson: What I wanted to ask about, I could have brought up in the bill today, but it's relevant here. To take the presentation hearing as an example, when going to court, what we're concerned with is the best interest of the child. The concern that I bring is that the ministry makes their presentation from their perspective, as they must and should do. One perspective which, time and time again, seems not to be adequately presented on behalf of the child is the perspective of the parents, because they're the ones that are being "questioned," if you like. When this has been raised, it's always been that if the parents are speaking up, they're speaking on their own behalf; but because of that, the concerns and the knowledge that the parents have about the child -- even though there are some questions about it -- is still very important. And so what I'm hearing time and time again is that there's an imbalance of information about the child -- for the judge to make their decision on -- in the presentation to the court, because the only persons who know a great deal of that information are the parents.
I'm wondering if the ministry has thought of a way to support the child by making sure that the parents have the opportunity to present the information and other perspectives from those that the social worker is presenting, which are necessary in order that the judge is really in a fair position to make a decision. Then everyone concerned, family and others, will be able to believe that all of the facts have been put forward.
Hon. P. Priddy: Actually there are two pieces to this answer, I guess. One of them is that under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the director of child protection, or his or her designate, actually has a legal responsibility to ensure that information from parents is also put forward. I mean, the first hearing is in seven days, but there still is a chance in seven days to make sure that there is a certain amount of information available. So the act says that information from parents -- not just about parents but from parents' perspectives -- must be presented.
Secondly, the work that has been done by the provincial court and Chief Judge Metzger around mediation has really led the way for us, because when we begin our own mediation program in the fall, mediation will offer a far greater opportunity for that kind of information to come forward. You have an impartial mediator, you have more time and so you have more opportunity to make sure that information comes forward.
V. Anderson: I'm pleased with both responses. I agree that mediation will be a far better introduction to this, so hopefully it will happen in more cases. I would just highlight that perhaps there could be a watching brief as we move into the court cases. Because if there's been a great weakness in the well-being of the children in the past, it's been that the information of the parents, and even the medical information that parents could provide which would be relevant, just wasn't available so many times. So if that can be followed, I'd appreciate it very much.
One final comment. Is the minister aware of -- and this is out of date, but it still gives the context in which most people are -- the welfare joke book put out by Federated Anti-Poverty Groups? I would like to make a presentation to her because I think it would be good background material for her, and particularly for the staff who might be new. Many of the questions that you're hearing at this point come out of the context of what has already happened to people. Since they've been living through that for 40 years, it's hard for them to change and say: "Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, we'll have to see it first." I'll present, though, and thank you very much.
M. Coell: I just have two questions to wrap up. One is that I would be interested -- and the minister might not have it -- in a breakdown on sick time for the different areas within the ministry -- the social workers and child protection workers -- and in whether the ministry is tracking that. If you don't have it with you, I would be pleased to get that at a later date.
The other question that I have, finally -- and I say this out of due respect to the deputy; I have a lot of respect for your deputy and for his skills -- is that I was a little dismayed to see that he was seconded to work on the jobs and timber accord. I would like to see 100 percent of his time directed at this ministry, and I would hope the minister will ensure that her colleagues in cabinet do not second him to work on fish wars or anything else in the future. I think it's very important that both the minister and the deputy minister focus 100 percent of their time on this job; and I know she does.
Hon. P. Priddy: The answer to the first question is that we do have the data on sick time. That's not a piece we brought with us; we can get that for you, and we're happy to provide that to you.
Actually, the deputy will be focusing 150 percent -- or I'm going to go and work on trees, but little trees, baby trees, youth trees, children's trees. People have asked this question, so I actually want to answer it. People have asked the question about the deputy's work, which I understand was very good work, around the forest work. Almost all of that work was either done on weekends or in the evenings. The deputy has a prodigious appetite for work, and at no time did I feel that the ministry suffered because he was doing work on jobs and timber. But that work has been finished for about two months, and we are all here, 200 percent.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that, and I again thank the minister and the staff, who have been here to assist in the estimates process. We have no further questions.
Vote 20 approved.
Vote 21: ministry operations, $1,360,560,000 -- approved.
Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:56 p.m.