1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999
Afternoon
Volume 15, Number 8
[ Page 12611 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today we're privileged to have with us the Minister of Education from the state of Punjab, Mr. Jathedar Tota Singh Brar. Mr. Brar is here as part of a fact-finding mission travelling across Canada to look at education systems across the country and also to visit different legislatures. I was explaining to him the significance of question period, and he commented to me that in the state of Punjab, it goes on for an hour -- which I'm sure members of the opposition would relish. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to the minister.
Joining the minister are a number of individuals: Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sandhu, who is chief secretary of the Ministry of Education in Punjab -- the chief secretary in terms of Canadian equivalents is a deputy minister; Mr. Jagjit Singh Sandhu, who is the secretary of the Punjab board of education; Mr. Mike Brar; Mr. Mohan Singh Kang; Mr. Rick Salaga; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhu; Mr. Daljit Singh Grewal; Mr. Nachater Singh; Mr. Katha Singh; Mr. Darshan Singh Dhariwal; Mr. Balbir Singh Brar; Mr. Harmeet Singh Sidhu; Sukhminder Grewal; and Mr. Sodhi. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.
S. Hawkins: I too want to extend a warm welcome to Punjab Education minister Jathedar Tota Singh Brar. My father was in India two years ago and had the opportunity to meet with the Education minister. He told me that he toured the Nanak Sar technical school in Jagraon district and the Mehndhiana technical school with his very good friend, Mr. Sabu Singh. He was a great Canadian and a great friend of the people of Punjab, and sadly, he passed away a couple of months ago. I know that he dealt with the Education minister, and he spoke very highly of the support and the leadership from this ministry. On behalf of the official opposition, we too extend a warm welcome to the Education minister and the delegation visiting here.
Hon. A. Petter: It is my sad responsibility to inform the House of the death of a former MLA, John Tisdalle, who served for 19 years as a representative for the Saanich and then the Saanich and the Islands constituency. He was well known within the community as a fighter for community causes, and he made a contribution in terms of improvements to Glendale hospital and the Pat Bay Highway.
[1410]
I recall my father telling me of his colourfulness as an MLA, and I believe that, in fact, my grandfather was an acquaintance of his. He was also something of a poet. He wrote three books of poetry and, I believe, earned an award from the World of Poetry Association for one of them. John Tisdalle was truly a person of the community and a major contributor to this Legislature. He died last Friday of cancer. He is survived by his second wife Maria and his sons, Rev. Vern Tisdalle and Rev. Lenard Tisdalle.
I would ask the House to join me in passing condolences to the family and if it's appropriate, hon. Speaker, ask you to communicate those condolences to the family on our behalf.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'd be happy to do that on behalf of the Members of the Legislative Assembly.
G. Campbell: It's my pleasure today to introduce Michael Holland from the Comox Valley, who is with us in the gallery. Mr. Holland has led the legal fight on behalf of Glacier View Lodge -- an extended-care facility in the Comox Valley -- against the government's plan to expropriate its assets and wipe out its volunteer board. Most importantly, Mr. Holland did all of this on a pro bono basis. That's a fine example of the volunteer spirit of the Comox Valley. I hope that we'll all give him a great welcome.
V. Anderson: Today in the House we have some 80 grade 11 students from Magee Secondary School, along with their teacher, Mr. Latimer, and adults who accompanied them. I hope that we will demonstrate to them how democracy works in British Columbia and that they will learn something positive from it. Please make them welcome.
G. Plant: Today in the gallery we also have a grade 7 class from W. D. Ferris Elementary School in beautiful Richmond. They are accompanied by several adults and their teacher, Don Allison. I know that they're here to watch democracy break out, so I hope the House will please make them welcome.
J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Roy Shields from Courtenay. He helped very much in my campaign in Parksville-Qualicum, and his dedication and enthusiasm made a great deal of difference.
Hon. A. Petter: It's now my pleasure to introduce six new legislative tour guides, who arrived on Monday for training that falls under the Premier's youth employment program. They'll be in our employ until Labour Day inclusive. All have been full-time students this year, and they're multilingual -- as are all the senior staff. Would you please make them welcome today. They are Alice Byers, Jennifer Fraser, Deborah Cooper, Megan Chang, Phillip Armstrong and Jess Raimbault.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.
[1415]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 62, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999; Estate Administration Act; Family Relations Act; Financial Administration Act; Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act; Human Resource Facility Act; Hydro and Power Authority Act; Interpretation Act; Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2); Offence Act; Public Sector Employers Act; Social Service Tax Act.
[ Page 12612 ]
I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments, of course, during second reading of the bill.
Bill 62 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.
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSETS PROTECTION ACT
C. Hansen presented a bill intituled Community Health Assets Protection Act.
C. Hansen: For the last year and a half, volunteers in not-for-profit organizations in this province have been under attack. The attack comes from the 1997 amendments to the Health Authorities Act, which give the Minister of Health the authority to seize their assets and to fire volunteer boards. In 1997 the then minister told me unequivocally in this House that there would be no expropriation without compensation. Yet only three months later, Glacier View Lodge in Courtenay found out that the minister had gone back on her word.
In October of that year the government began the process of expropriating the assets of this society. These were assets, including land and buildings, that had been developed as a result of the tireless efforts of community volunteers. This does not just impact Glacier View Lodge; it threatens charity-run health care facilities throughout B.C. Michael Holland, who was introduced earlier, was one of those volunteers who put in thousands of hours of time to challenge the government's right to expropriate. By taking on this case pro bono, he and the other community volunteers in the Comox Valley have succeeded in stalling the NDP government's attack on charities.
But the legislation still exists, and that is not good enough. Why would any community-based organization want to help build new housing for seniors or for special needs British Columbians when the threat of expropriation hangs over their head? The only way to restore the rights of community-minded volunteers is to remove these expropriation powers. The legislation that I'm introducing today does just that.
I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M214 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.
JOB PROSPECTS IN FOREST INDUSTRY
G. Abbott: We have obtained a confidential government document that was prepared for the forest communities transition secretariat in February. This document lists 41 forest-dependent communities as being "at risk of significant forest sector unemployment within the next six months." The list includes Vanderhoof, Soda Creek, Alert Bay and dozens of other communities that are suffering from the NDP's forest policies. Will the Minister of Forests tell us how many jobs will be lost in these 41 forest-dependent communities in the next six months?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The opposition critic should do his homework. There is no sawmill in Soda Creek.
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Shuswap.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Abbott: I think we get a hint of why the forest industry has such problems in
this province, when the Minister of Forests can flippantly cast aside jobs in the woods.
Why can he do that -- just cast them aside? We know that the phrase
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Abbott:
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't, because we've asked the forest industry, who predicted 12 mills would go down, where those were. Of course, for reasons of business confidentiality, they wouldn't tell us. In fact, we pressed them, saying: "If we make the changes under the short-term forest action plan -- reduce costs, reduce red tape -- how many closures would there be?" The evidence is there that there have been 700 jobs lost year over year, not the 15,000 that that side predicted.
[1420]
R. Neufeld: Well, 15,000 jobs are real jobs in the forest industry, no matter where
they are. The families in these 41 forest-dependent communities deserve to know how many
jobs
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order!
R. Neufeld:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There have been no closures since Ainsworth downsized and reinvested in jobs in Chasm. As long as the current trends are there, I don't think we'll see very many more closures -- except those that industry wants to make for efficiency reasons. So while we have identified communities that might be at risk in a soft forest economy with rebounding prices, there won't be the massive job losses that
[ Page 12613 ]
are predicted on that side. They're overestimating all the time and multiplying by three. But as long as the trees are down, prices are up, exports are up and production's up, there won't be job loss.
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Peace River North.
R. Neufeld: On this same list of communities at risk is Powell River. Will the minister tell this House how many forest industry-related jobs will be lost in Powell River in the next six months?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members -- all members.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member didn't hear what I said. As long as the
pulp industry doesn't go down -- and it's creeping back up -- there won't be job losses in
Powell River, other than the rationalization that might be needed in the wood room, or
whatever, which has been done. We have identified forest-dependent communities, and that's
what the opposition have. There are lots of forest-dependent communities where, if the
economics of the industry
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, members.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have reduced stumpage by $575 million. We have reduced log costs by regulatory reform to the tune of another $400 million. That means that as long as prices stay up, there's recovery in Asia and the United States market stays up, there won't be job losses in those communities at risk.
FISHERIES SECTOR ASSISTANCE AND
NANOOSE FEDERAL LEASE PAYMENT OFFER
G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. In addition to the 41 forest-dependent communities which are now claimed to be at risk -- we're told are at risk -- this document identifies 30 fisheries-dependent communities that his officials have said are at risk. Eleven of those communities have been identified by the Ministry of Fisheries. My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: how many jobs is his government predicting will be lost in fishing-dependent communities which his officials have described as at risk?
Hon. D. Streifel: Wow! I've been waiting and waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question about fisheries communities. My guess is that part of this work that was done is a federal government prediction done by Gordon Gislason on the 13,000 jobs that have been lost in the fishing communities in British Columbia. The report also points out that the federal Liberal government has abandoned and walked away from these communities without one iota of help, and we haven't had one word from the members of the opposition on this devastation on our coast. We're working within a resource that's abundant. The problem is the federal policies that deny access of British Columbians to a resource that's raised -- grown -- in their own waters. It's a resource that's given freely to the Americans, and it's a shame that the Liberal opposition supports that policy.
[1425]
The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: Those words ring awfully hollow when this minister's government has just rejected $125 million in lease payments for Nanoose Bay.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order, please.
G. Campbell: That's money that could have been used to provide for a stable future for those coastal communities. My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: how can he claim to do anything for those communities when he's just kissed off $125 million which could have been used to assist them?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. A. Petter: The amount referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is the amount that was negotiated by this government and signed off in an agreement as to principles between the province of British Columbia and the federal government. Unfortunately, the federal government has decided to back away from those principles. Even more regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition has supported them in doing so. The Leader of the Opposition has given them comfort and suggested that he would support a move in which they would proceed with the expropriation and then return the base following the next election. That kind of political opportunism in selling out B.C. interests will not be appreciated by British Columbians. Rest assured, hon. Speaker, that we will be seeking full compensation in any expropriation proceeding, and we will be ensuring that compensation goes to communities. We will not be selling out B.C.'s interests against nuclear warheads in the process, which is the consequence of the Leader of the Opposition's policy.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, come to order.
Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members will come to order.
G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister's own staff have said that people are going
[ Page 12614 ]
to lose jobs in the fishing industry in Campbell River. Fishing jobs are going to disappear in Courtenay. Fishing jobs are going to disappear in Bamfield. They're going to disappear in 27 other communities up and down the coast of British Columbia. My question to this minister is: how can he claim to represent any of those families who depend on the fishery for their paycheques when he's just kissed off $125 million that could be used to assist them?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, come to order.
Hon. A. Petter: The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to sell out B.C.
interests to anyone who comes along, be it Ottawa or Washington or anyone else.
Apparently, in this case, he'll sell out for bottom dollar. The U.S. Navy itself
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. A. Petter:
The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy that the federal government would back away
from a signed agreement as to the principles, quite happy that they would use the
extraordinary power of expropriation against British Columbia, it seems, and quite happy
in the process to abandon the principle against nuclear warheads in B.C. waters
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. A. Petter:
The Speaker: Minister, please finish.
Hon. A. Petter:
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. A. Petter:
[1430]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, come to order.
G. Plant: Here's what British Columbians don't appreciate: a Minister of Fisheries who claims to stand up and defend coastal communities and then sells them out because of cheap political points.
The Speaker: And the question?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member is about to put his question. Order, please.
G. Plant: The Minister of Fisheries had an opportunity to do something for the fishermen in Nanaimo, in Sooke, in Richmond. Instead, he walked away from them. How on earth can the Minister of Fisheries stand up and justify selling out the fishermen of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Streifel: You know, yesterday when Minister Anderson was in the building, I expected the Leader of the Opposition to at least come up and say: "Oh, we forgot to bring these issues up in estimates. We suddenly discovered that there are folks on the coast that are hungry. Will you help us?" But you know, the Leader of the Opposition is too busy on Howe Street to come out to the coast.
I will give him
The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.
Hon. D. Streifel: But you can come out there with me, you can walk the streets,
you can walk the docks. You can talk to these people to find out why your colleague
The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.
Hon. D. Streifel:
The Speaker: Minister, thank you.
Hon. D. Streifel:
The Speaker: First supplementary
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members!
I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for a first supplementary.
G. Plant: The Minister of Fisheries had an opportunity to practise something a
little more substantive than rhetoric. He had an opportunity
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, members.
G. Plant:
The Speaker: Minister of Fisheries -- and comments, please, through the Chair.
Hon. D. Streifel: I respect the chamber, and I will deliver my comments through the Chair.
[ Page 12615 ]
The member opposite asked me what I've done specifically. Well, I tell you that when I
was standing on the docks in Steveston, the member who represents that community wasn't
there with the fishermen that want to bring forward a fish market so that in fact
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. D. Streifel:
In the past three years alone, through Forest Renewal, through Fisheries Renewal and other resources, we have committed more than $400 million to habitat restoration. They call it smoke-and-mirrors; they want no part of it.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. D. Streifel: They don't want to deal with fisheries transition communities. This is the first time since I've been in this House that they've raised any fisheries issues, that they've recognized that there's a problem out there. And if it's a new-found knowledge, come on with me; let's go solve the problems.
[1435]
Hon. D. Lovick: It's my pleasure to table the 1998 annual report of the Insurance Corporation of B.C.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Human Resources. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of Advanced Education and then Labour.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
AND MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 11: ministry operations, $1,717,327,000 (continued).
G. Plant: I understood there would be an opportunity now to ask a question or two dealing with the minister's responsibilities in respect of Intergovernmental Relations. I think the minister agrees that this is the opportunity.
There really are just two subjects that I want to canvass relatively briefly. In February 1999 the province became a party to an agreement between the government of Canada and the governments of the other provinces and territories. The agreement is called "A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians." I know that this is a project that the minister was particularly involved in. It was an issue that was of some importance to him. Obviously the challenge faced by governments when agreements like this have been entered into is to move beyond the fact of the agreement to some sense of how it may be implemented. I wonder if the minister could give us his perspective on what he sees, over the course of the fiscal year that we're now in, as the issues that are going to arise in the context of implementation and, basically, what he hopes the government will achieve on that front in the foreseeable future.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question and the interest that lies behind it. Let me first just introduce, for the members' benefit, Pierrette Maranda, who is a senior adviser in federal-provincial relations in the IGR secretariat. The social union framework agreement -- the shorthand that's used to describe it is SUFA, which I don't particularly like as an acronym, but there it is -- was, I think, a significant step in trying to provide a context and an understanding through which governments, both provincial and federal and, indeed, territorial, can work in terms of their relationship around social policy issues, which have been under some strain, particularly in the face of federal cutbacks. I think that the agreement will help in trying to provide a better framework and some principles that can, hopefully, allow governments to better cooperate amongst themselves on some of these issues, in terms of moving forward.
[1440]
I won't review the details of the agreement. It deals with issues such as mobility and accountability. It puts certain requirements on the federal government that it must observe before proceeding to initiate programs. There's been a major irritation around the fact that the federal government has initiated programs in areas of provincial responsibility without consulting the provinces and, by doing so, has either duplicated services that are being provided or may not be providing services in the most effective way. This agreement certainly deals with some of those issues, puts on some constraints -- not as many as I and this province would have liked, but certainly more than previously existed -- and makes some headway in that regard. It also provides a mechanism for resolving the disputes that arise.
The member asks: what happens in terms of the implementation of the agreement? That's a very timely question, because indeed it's the issue that is now being worked out through the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal. That's the council that really negotiated the agreement, prior to the first ministers coming into the equation towards the end, and finalized the terms of the agreement. It's a council of provinces, territories and the federal government, represented by ministers from each of those jurisdictions. That council will continue to work through the issues of implementation in terms of helping to give meaning to the principles of the agreement, providing some consistent ground rules for provinces and the federal government in terms of meeting those and also putting in place certain processes, such as dispute resolution and the like, so that the provinces and people will know how in fact these matters are to be resolved.
I can give the member an example. There are certain requirements for reporting by jurisdictions concerning their
[ Page 12616 ]
adherence to requirements concerning mobility. There are issues as to whether that reporting would be done by each jurisdiction. Would it be done through sectoral councils of ministers, so that Health ministers would get together and report together? Would it be done by British Columbia, discussing all of the social programs that might be affected? Would the reporting be done through the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal or not?
Some of those logistical questions are being worked out, in a very cooperative framework, to ensure that the agreement is in fact given meaning and that the spirit of cooperation that animated the agreement is carried out in its implementation.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. I think that one of the points that he is making is that there is in fact an ongoing process around implementation, that the government of British Columbia and the other governments which are parties to this are committed to try to turn this document into something that will have significance over time. That's not always the case with interprovincial accords.
I know that the minister and I touched on the Calgary declaration in one of these debates at some point, and we examined the fact that the Calgary declaration or framework, or whatever it's called, was a statement of principles that might influence the way in which the governments of Canada worked together on certain fronts. I suspect that was a document that lent itself less to a kind of ongoing administrative process than this framework does. But clearly, if the parties to the framework to improve the social union are going to give life to this document, there will need to be some work done to understand what it means and to ensure that there are ongoing relationships put in place, so that people are talking to each other about what the document means and how it will influence, I guess, not only the federal government acting alone and the provinces acting alone but the federal government and the provinces acting together.
[1445]
I guess what the minister is saying is that those processes exist, that there's work being done. He envisions that that work will continue to be done. Presumably, all things being equal, we'll meet back here a year from now, and we'll be able to trace a bit of that progress over the course of the year. If I've got it wrong, the minister can correct me. If I've got it right, then I'm sure the minister can confirm that, and he may have more to add.
Hon. A. Petter: In general terms, I'm happy to confirm that. I guess what I'd say is that in addition to the specific implementation issues around the document and how reporting and dispute resolution take place, I think the real tracing that will be more significant over the course of the year the member describes will be to see the extent to which governments are in fact influenced by the principles they've agreed to -- for example, the extent to which the federal government does engage in meaningful discussions prior to initiating new programs and does adhere to some of these expectations.
Certainly I'm quite optimistic in that regard. I think the fact that this was a long process, one given lots of deliberation -- and therefore I think the principles have been well internalized by all parties -- should produce positive results. In some ways, that's more important than the structural issues about reporting and things -- if we actually see a change in behaviour around these issues.
G. Plant: I guess I do want to follow up that last observation by agreeing with the minister. I mean, I suppose whichever old homily you want to drag out -- the proof is in the pudding or something like that -- obviously governments are going to be faced with the opportunity, as policy issues arise, to either deal with those policy issues in a way which complies with the spirit and the letter of this agreement or not. That will be the acid test of whether the agreement amounts to anything.
The processes that we've been talking about earlier are, perhaps as much as anything, a way of ensuring that there are lines of communication open on an ongoing basis, so that the risk of a problem arising is minimized. At some point, these things also get wrapped up in politics. The next time, if there is one, that the government of Canada chooses to act unilaterally in a field of social policy encompassed by this agreement, then we'll see what the agreement amounts to.
Speaking of politics, I did want to move on to one other issue which has been in the news of late, and that is the Nanoose Bay issue. I don't want to canvass all of the dimensions of the current situation here. I think, as is often the case with political debates, there may be at least as much heat as light. But one aspect of the public debate and the public commentary from officials, including the minister, has to do with the issue of what appears to be a provincial policy position around the use of or the presence of nuclear warheads in the Nanoose Bay testing range.
One reads press accounts to the effect that this is an issue that was of concern to the province in the context of the negotiations around the use of Nanoose Bay. I assume the minister would not disagree with that contention, and I know the minister has a particular perspective on the state of negotiations between the province and the federal government in relation to that and other issues.
What I am concerned to explore with the minister is -- in broad terms, I suppose -- whether the province has a broad policy around the presence of nuclear warheads in waters in and around British Columbia. The news accounts of the public discussion around this issue have pointed out that in all likelihood -- virtual certainty -- the naval base in Esquimalt has been visited from time to time by more than a few ships with nuclear warheads on them.
[1450]
While that naval base is obviously within federal jurisdiction, the question arises whether the province's position, in respect of nuclear warheads in Nanoose Bay, represents a new policy development on the part of the province, an isolated incidence of a policy approach or something that is consistent with longstanding provincial policy which I'm simply not aware of. The particular aspect of that debate around Nanoose Bay that I want to pursue with the minister is how he sees the position that the province has taken with respect to the presence of nuclear warheads in Nanoose Bay in the context of whatever the province's policies are around the presence of nuclear warheads in British Columbia generally.
Hon. A. Petter: I see this as the application of a longstanding policy of the province. This Legislature -- I guess before the member became a member of this body -- in 1992 did pass a resolution declaring British Columbia to be a nuclear-weapons-free area. That resolution was passed almost unanimously. I think there was one member who voted in
[ Page 12617 ]
opposition at the time. That resolution is certainly one that the government supports and views itself as acting consistently with and has taken positions on from time to time.
However, it is a general statement of principle, and as the member can appreciate, given the province's jurisdiction, there are limited opportunities to apply that principle from a provincial-jurisdictional perspective. One of those opportunities presented itself -- indeed was presented to the province -- in the context of the Nanoose licence renewal.
That licence expires -- I'm talking about the licence with respect to the use of the seabed -- in September. The federal government asked us to extend that licence through negotiations. In the context of those negotiations, we sought, as an objective of those negotiations -- and provided the mandate to our negotiator -- to apply the policy that had been adopted by the Legislature in the context of this particular piece of property, which was a base that was utilized by American military craft in the context of testing non-nuclear-equipped torpedoes.
Given that this is provincial property and that we have had a longstanding policy, since 1992, as a Legislature -- which the government certainly wishes to act in the spirit of -- we sought that objective. We took it to the table through our negotiator. The negotiations resulted in an agreement as to principles -- which is to say an agreement amongst the negotiators as to the principles that they believed could result in an agreement -- and in fact, that's made clear. The negotiators will recommend that an amended licence based on these principles is what they agreed to do. The agreement did not have legal status, but it was the product of negotiation amongst very senior officials as to their view as to what would provide an acceptable licence. Clause 7 of that agreement included the provision: "An environmental schedule, along the lines of annex A of these principles, will be included in the licence and will include a provision confirming that no nuclear warheads will be present at any time within the licenced area."
The agreement obviously dealt with other matters: compensation and the amounts as to
compensation -- $4 million a year, with a $5 million one-time payment, over 30 years; the
size of the area; and certain other environmental matters as well. But given that this was
a situation in which there was an apprehension concerning the presence of nuclear
warheads, given the provincial government's and the Legislature's policy on it and given
that the land base is owned by the province, we felt that it was an important objective to
pursue. We did pursue it. We thought we had achieved it. It was only when we discovered
that in fact the federal government indicated that it was not prepared to stand behind
that principle, notwithstanding what its negotiator had indicated, through agreement, that
he was prepared to recommend
G. Plant: I appreciate the fullness of the minister's response. One of the challenges, I suppose, that any member of the opposition has to face in terms of dealing with a dispute or an issue -- negotiations, dispute, whatever -- between the provincial government and the federal government is that we as opposition are usually not in the room. The minister has identified a document, which I think he described in terms like "an agreement as to principles." Point 7 of that document is the point that relates to the subject at hand, and the minister referred to it. I guess I want to be sure I understand the province's position in respect of that document and the issue.
[1455]
I think the minister said, in effect, that the federal negotiator said that this was a position which he would recommend to his superiors, and that's where it was left at the table. Then presumably it went off to wherever the federal negotiators went, and that's where the problem arose. So far as the province was concerned, at the table they had the federal negotiator saying, in effect: "It's okay. I like this; I could take this." Maybe there was some assurance along the lines of: "I'm sure we can do a deal on this basis." Is that more or less what the minister is saying occurred? If I've got it wrong, then I invite the minister to correct me.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll respond and then add a bit more context as to why this matter took on an added dimension last Friday. Yes, I think the member is essentially right, although I think he's being a bit more casual about the agreement than I would suggest it be treated. In strict terms -- and I'll read it -- it says: "The following represent the best efforts of the two negotiators to arrive at points of principle concerning an amended licence of the occupation for the Whisky Golf test range. The negotiators will recommend an amended licence based on these principles. It is recognized that certain policy issues have yet to be resolved before either party commits to enter into an amended licence arrangement." Then it sets out the various principles that were in fact agreed to.
Certainly I've never suggested that this was a legally binding document. But it was a seriously negotiated document by very senior officials, who weren't just there to decide what they themselves thought was a good idea but presumably to decide what they thought their governments could live with, based on their mandates and instructions and the iterative process that goes on in these kinds of negotiations. So it certainly had significance and meaning. And normally one would expect that this kind of document, once signed off, would provide the basis for an agreement, subject to consideration of other issues that need to be resolved that are not specified in the document, such as the one I referred to earlier on nuclear warheads.
The other little context I want to add -- simply because I think it would help the
member understand the reaction, perhaps, that I and the B.C. government had to this -- is
that on Friday, when the federal government decided to proceed with its expropriation, the
reasons that were given, both in official documents that were released and in statements
by the federal government, suggested that the reason that agreement had not been concluded
was because of the province's failure to stand by these points of principle. These points
of principle were elevated by the federal government, in statements that were made last
Friday, to a status that suggested that the province had somehow reneged on whatever
status you accord to this agreement. Let me just quote it to you. Federal Fisheries
minister David Anderson, last Friday on CBC Radio, said: "
The documents released at the time the expropriation was announced had a chronology. The chronology said: "May
[ Page 12618 ]
5, 1999, negotiators for the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia agree on a set of principles for a future licensing arrangement." The communiqu� suggested that the government of British Columbia decided that it could not approve the principles of agreement that negotiators recommended as one of the rationales -- indeed, one of the primary rationales -- for expropriation, as did the letter from Minister Eggleton.
[1500]
I say that because I think the member will understand that this was signed off, and we were then told that it would not be abided by. We accepted that, with disappointment and some frustration. But to then be subsequently told that the reason the negotiations had failed was because we would not stand by these principles, when in fact the very opposite was the case, and that these principles had somehow formed the basis for an agreement that we had reneged on -- my interpretation of the connotation of these remarks -- added a whole new dimension that excited perhaps the intensity -- not the content, but the intensity -- of the response that came back to the federal government. The federal government can't have it both ways. Either this is an agreement or it isn't. In fact, it is an agreement, but it's an agreement as to principles, not legally binding, and one that one would normally expect the federal government to act upon. In this case they didn't, but it's bit much, given that they didn't, that they provided the rationale for their expropriation as being that the province didn't act upon them.
G. Plant: The minister's point is that in effect the federal government is relying on the province's failure to honour the principles in the very same document where the province says it finds some level of assurance that the federal government had accepted the province's position on nuclear warheads. The two parties are essentially talking about the same document. I just want to make sure that I was connecting the minister's remarks properly there.
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the signed points of principle were taken, at the
time, by the negotiator and by the province as indicative of the fact that the federal
government would be agreeable to including within the licence agreement a provision, as it
says, that no nuclear warhead be present at any time. We were proceeding on that basis
until we were informed that in fact the federal government was not prepared to adhere to
that principle. That plus the fact that we had also been proceeding on other issues in
tandem with this in which the federal government had not been responsive -- issues of
particular concern to coastal communities, such as resources to help those communities get
back on their feet, because of the situation they face in respect to the salmon resource,
and positions in respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations and the need to ensure
that conservation measures are visited upon U.S. jurisdictions to the same extent as they
are upon Canadian, so that we get real conservation, not the kind that saves fish in B.C.
to be caught in Alaska
G. Plant: The minister referred in that last answer to other issues that were being pursued in tandem and identified concerns around the Pacific Salmon Treaty and concerns around coastal communities. Was it the province's position that those issues needed to be resolved as part and parcel of an attempt to resolve the issue around the renewal of the licence? That is, were these, from the province's perspective, all issues that had to be resolved before there could be an agreement on the renewal of the licence?
Hon. A. Petter: It was our objective and certainly our negotiating position with the federal government that we wanted to see all of those issues resolved in conjunction with each other. We were pursuing that. Once the points of principle had been achieved, we were then testing the extent to which the federal government would in fact advance on the other issues. But the point became a bit moot when it turned out that in addition to the federal government saying that they would not proceed on the other issues in conjunction with Nanoose, the agreement we had achieved as to principles with respect to Nanoose was not adhered to by the federal government.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister, in effect, indulging me with some of these
background facts. We have been talking about
[1505]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the points-of-principle document dealt, as the member quite correctly says, with the renewal issue on the lease, and the mandate of the negotiators was focused on that particular issue.
G. Plant: I suppose the larger public policy debate that is suggested by the circumstances includes a debate around the issues of what's called linkage -- the idea of joining a number of issues together in one set of discussions in the hope that all can be resolved. The minister may want to give me -- the House, the committee -- his views on that particular issue. I am, though, still a little interested, mainly in process.
Having identified that the points of principle was a document, a set of issues being
discussed in the context of the renewal, and having identified that there were also other
issues being pursued that the province wanted to have resolved or at least addressed
Hon. A. Petter: I rather suppose the answer to that question depends on your perspective. From our point of view, it was different issues being discussed within the context of a related process, but in different ways. Because the licence
[ Page 12619 ]
renewal issue concerns certain particular issues relating to the size of the area to be
renewed, environmental concerns and nuclear issues, there was a specific negotiation
between officials to try to arrive at points of principle that would be agreeable to
governments with respect to the resolution of that issue. At the same time, other issues
relating to federal resources for coastal communities, which had been, frankly, the
subject of discussion for some time previous to this particular negotiation
In addition, as the member will be aware, we were pushing very strongly to encourage the federal government to ensure that conservation measures with respect to endangered stocks, like coho, were in fact being pursued in a way that achieved real conservation. We did so against the background that last year, for example, 800,000 endangered coho were captured in Alaskan nets, compared to the fact that no endangered coho were caught in British Columbia. What that really means is the fact that our conservation measures are simply resulting in more fish for Alaskans, which is no form of conservation at all. It's like trying to conserve water in a bucket and having only half the bottom of the bucket in place. Those were all issues that were being pursued, because they had something in common. They had in common the fact that they concerned the security of coastal communities. We were trying to pursue them in relationship to each other and trying to see if we could get resolution of all of them in conjunction with each other.
[1510]
When it appeared that we had resolution on the Nanoose issue, we were discussing whether we could also get resolution on the others and relate them. Then, of course, it became clear that we didn't have resolution on the Nanoose issue, and the federal government maintained its position that it wouldn't make progress on the others. At that point the negotiations were cut off. The federal government decided to expropriate, and they indicated that the rationale for expropriating was that we wouldn't agree to the points of principle -- albeit they maintained, I think, that that was because we were negotiating these other issues. I issued a statement. In fact, prior to their expropriation announcement I issued a statement saying that we were prepared to conclude an agreement on Nanoose based upon the points of principle and move on to the other issues, if there was a serious commitment to do so. But the expropriation decision went ahead nonetheless.
G. Plant: Again, I appreciate the minister's willingness to expand upon the process, to explain the process from his perspective. I want to bring the discussion back specifically to the relationship of the nuclear issue to Nanoose Bay in particular. I'm looking at the statement that Premier Clark issued about Nanoose in August 14, 1997. The statement was released by the Premier in response to the fact -- among other things -- that on August 14, 1997, the federal government had launched a court action asking the court to stop British Columbia from unilaterally attempting to end United States use of the Nanoose Bay torpedo testing range. That was the point in the ongoing issue where the Premier issued this statement.
It's a pretty careful statement -- impassioned, but a careful statement -- of the province's perspective. I suppose you could say it was a tough statement, but there's nothing in it about nuclear warheads. There's no indication by the Premier that an issue that is of particular concern to the province is the presence or possible presence of nuclear warheads or related concerns.
I draw the minister's attention to this because I recall having had the sense last
week, when I first began to read the press announcements about the expropriation decision
and the kinds of things the minister's talking about
Hon. A. Petter: The member has a statement from 1997. I'll just go by my recollection of events, not of the carefully parsed statement -- if it was carefully parsed.
In 1997 the issue of Nanoose Bay came up in a somewhat different context -- not completely unrelated but a different context -- in the sense that there was a sense on the part of British Columbia, and certainly the government of British Columbia, that the U.S. government, in particular Alaska, was not living up to its obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty and was not fulfilling its obligations with respect to the equity requirements of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, etc.
[1515]
What the Premier did was indicate that B.C. would utilize its capacity to cancel the Nanoose licence at that time, in order to put pressure on the U.S. government to negotiate in good faith and live up to the obligations that it has under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It was done very explicitly for that reason -- albeit the effort to put pressure on was undermined to a considerable extent by the federal government quickly stepping in and saying that they would take action to prevent that cancellation from taking place.
The warhead issue was not raised at that time, because the issue was not one of the province seeking to renew the licence or impose conditions on it. The question was raised because the licence issue came up -- in terms of cancellation -- as a very specific strategy or measure used by the province in order put pressure on the U.S. with respect to interests that the province believed it was not living up to in a manner consistent with its obligations.
Flash forward two years, and we come to the point where there is an opportunity for the
licence to be renewed with respect to the seabed. That is the normal opportunity at which
parties -- to take it down to a homier example, landlord and tenant
[ Page 12620 ]
the tenant -- whatever. Fair enough. That matter is resolved in a fashion or is on a different track.
Then we come forward two years, and suddenly there is a chance to renew the terms of the lease. At that point you go back and say: "Okay, what about the terms of the lease? Let's deal with the terms of the lease and see whether or not that lease now satisfies our current policy objectives." The opportunity to bring to bear the policy that was enunciated in the Legislature in 1992, and adopted by the government, presented itself logically in the context of the negotiations concerning the renewal of the licence. So when those negotiations commenced in fairly recent times -- within the last month or so -- it was at that time that the mandate that was prepared for those negotiations was set out by the province for its negotiator. The issue of nuclear warheads was introduced into that mandate. As the member well knows -- and I'd be happy to share with him the points of principle, but I assume he has them -- that resulted in the agreement we had.
The only other thing I'd say is that part of the impression the member may have -- that this arose very recently, which is to say in the last few days -- is two things. First of all, the negotiations were not pursued publicly; they were pursued privately. And we felt that this was a position that we had a chance of achieving at the table. In fact, we were given some support for that view because of the points of principle that were signed off by the federal government. Therefore it did not become a public issue, because we felt that the negotiations were proceeding and that we would be able to achieve this objective. Certainly, once we had the points of principle signed off, that's what we believed.
Secondly, there was some misinformation in the press -- attributed to federal sources -- that somehow we had put this issue on the table. I think it was suggested as recently as the Saturday before last, which would have been after May 5. That was one of the reasons that I took action -- which, frankly, I would not have normally taken -- to release this kind of document, a federal-provincial document. I would not normally have released this document but for the fact that the provincial position was being so systematically misrepresented, both as to our support for the document and what it said and as to the timing around our raising of this issue.
To encapsulate, we raised the nuclear warhead issue in the context of the very specific negotiations around the licence renewal which have taken place within the last month or so. That is the logical time at which that issue would have been raised, because it's a condition of the renewal of the tenancy. It was pursued quietly and effectively, we thought -- very effectively -- up until the point that the negotiations broke down. The document was only released because there was some misinformation concerning the province's position.
G. Plant: When did the renewal negotiations over Nanoose -- the licence -- begin?
[1520]
Hon. A. Petter: I will go by the federal chronology on this, but it comes with a caveat: that I don't have immediate information. What the federal chronology suggests is that in February 1999, the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence contacted the deputy minister to the Premier of British Columbia with a mind to commencing negotiations. Then on March 30 the Minister of National Defence sent a letter to the Premier requesting cooperation in reaching a negotiated settlement. So it would have been following from those two discussions. Sometime following February-March, the actual mandates would have been developed, and the negotiators, I believe, would have gone to the table in April and the agreement would have been concluded -- we thought -- in May.
G. Plant: I gather from the minister's explanation a moment ago that the province's concerns around nuclear warheads would have been on the table, as it were, early in these negotiations. The minister can guess that I am partly responding to the media accounts that the minister himself has referred to, suggesting that the issue didn't come up until very late in the discussion. Again, I'm interested in what the province's perspective is on that, if the minister has the information.
Hon. A. Petter: Other than giving the general context, which I have given, I don't know directly. I can try to find out when the provincial negotiator would have chosen to put that issue on the table, as opposed to others. I don't know. Certainly it was part of the instructions that were given. The mandate was given to the provincial negotiator, in pursuing these negotiations, to achieve this objective -- along with some other important objectives, including the issue of compensation, environmental protection and the size of the licence area. That was pursued throughout the context of these negotiations. I don't know the precise dates when one issue was raised with the federal negotiators as opposed to another.
G. Plant: I have one or two other aspects of this I want to pursue, but my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wishes to raise a matter with the Chair.
K. Krueger: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Krueger: While I apologize for interrupting this important discussion, I didn't want to miss the opportunity, on behalf of my colleague the member for Okanagan West, who is detained on other business, to introduce guests from her riding -- a class of grade 7 students from Kelowna Christian School, here with their teacher, Mr. MacArthur. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Plant: I want to explore the limits or the significance of the idea which the minister has given voice to here: that the province, in raising the nuclear issue in the Nanoose Bay licence renewal negotiations was, in effect, implementing policy that goes back as far as 1992. I'm grateful to the minister for having identified the starting point, if you will, in terms of the resolution of this assembly passed before I had the privilege of being a member of it. Has the province acted on this policy commitment in any other context over the course of the last seven years? I threw out some examples. Has the province taken any firm positions around what should or should not be permitted at the naval base in Esquimalt or at the harbour in Vancouver? Or does the Nanoose Bay licence renewal negotiation really constitute the first occasion on which the province has, in any kind of formal way, sought to give life to this policy commitment?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, to my knowledge, the Nanoose Bay issue is the first application -- and the first opportunity for an
[ Page 12621 ]
application -- of the policy, with respect to a matter within provincial jurisdiction. Certainly the policy is well known. But as I said at the outset, the policy is one of principle, and the principle cannot be applied by the province with respect to areas outside of its jurisdiction. Because the seabed is provincially owned and because the facility is utilized by the U.S. military and requires the use of the seabed, the Nanoose Bay issue was the first opportunity that I'm aware of where the policy was engaged with respect to a legitimate matter of provincial jurisdiction relating to military use -- in this case, of provincial land, albeit underwater land.
[1525]
G. Plant: By way of contrast, using Esquimalt as an example
Hon. A. Petter: I would be a bit more specific in this case, because the federal
government has general jurisdiction over navigable waters as well as defence matters. The
Nanoose situation is really unique, insofar as it is a provincial seabed that is being
used for a military purpose. Therefore there is a direct engagement of provincial
proprietary rights with a military use that raises the question of nuclear warheads being
present. It's that interplay, rather than the broader sense
Let me put it this way. The issue was clearly engaged here in the province's mind because there was a proprietary interest. The province was being asked to renew a licence pursuant to that proprietary interest. The question of military use was specifically being engaged in that negotiation. As a result, the question of the provincial policy was engaged in the mind of government, and the objective to preclude nuclear warheads was applied -- as opposed to more general situations that may arise from time to time, where there may be some more ephemeral provincial interest or whatever. This was one where there was clearly and squarely, in our view, a provincial proprietary right that might or might not be used to accommodate a military use that might or might not include nuclear warheads. For that reason, we chose -- in the context of this very specific negotiation -- to raise the issue.
G. Plant: I confess that I don't know whether Victoria harbour is in inland waters or not. The minister's distinction is nonetheless a very useful one, because clearly the provincial ownership of the seabed of Nanoose Bay is established by litigation.
By way of momentary digression, I actually happened to be in the Supreme Court of Canada when that case was argued, and it was interesting to hear lawyers arguing about the geographical dimensions of the Strait of Georgia and whether they constituted something which the lawyers call intra faucus terral. I was there as a clerk, so I was not there on behalf of one party or the other. But the most entertaining part of the whole thing was that the province, I think, had attached to its factum a very beautiful photograph of someone playing golf in Victoria, with Mount Baker in the background -- I think the objective being to prove that the two parts of earth were kind of connected.
Moving on, I want to just ask this question. It may well be that the issue which, as the minister says, was connected in the case of Nanoose Bay, because of provincial ownership of the seabed, might arise again. The seabed of Georgia strait is, I think, all provincial land. Is the minister suggesting that the province now has a policy that when any future lease, like the Nanoose Bay lease, comes up, there would be a no-nuclear-weapons policy attached to the negotiations? Or is there some other approach that will be taken?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member is suggesting that we attach to our aquaculture leases a no-nuclear-warheads policy, I don't think that's likely. I think we'll act a little more pragmatically, as we did here. Where there's an apprehension that such warheads might be present or the site might be used to accommodate such warheads, then the policy will, as far as this government is concerned, be pursued. But I don't expect it will be attached to our aquaculture leases -- no.
[1530]
G. Plant: Would the minister suggest that, in effect, Nanoose is really a one-off and that because of the particular circumstances of the Nanoose Bay lease -- the fact that the province owns the land, but the American military is using it as a testing base -- those circumstances are unique and that therefore we're not really talking about a policy that's going to be consistently applied in a variety of other contexts, but rather we're talking about a particular one-off situation? Or am I drawing lines that are too bright or too general?
Hon. A. Petter: The only quarrel I have is that the term "one-off" suggests that it's somehow arbitrary. It comes out of the unique interrelationship that occurs between an established provincial proprietary right and a military use which engages that right -- the testing of torpedoes -- and the apprehension that that military use might be accompanied by the introduction of nuclear warheads into the area.
Where those circumstances pertain, I'm confident that the provincial policy will be applied consistently. But they are a fairly unique set of circumstances, so if it is one-off, it's not because it's being done arbitrarily. It's because it's not often that that provincial proprietary interest will be engaged in this way and the apprehension that's created can be addressed through the exercise of something that is so clearly and squarely within provincial jurisdiction.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's willingness to take some time to explain the provincial perspective on this important issue. I also want to thank the minister's staff for the helpful briefing that they provided to me, which certainly assists me in my job as critic. Those are all the questions I have in respect to Intergovernmental Relations issues -- so back to Advanced Education, I suspect.
J. Weisbeck: A short while ago I gave the minister a letter. I apologize for
such short notice; I just received it myself. Is it appropriate to discuss it at this
point in time, or should we
[ Page 12622 ]
Interjection.
J. Weisbeck: You had a look at it? It has to do, basically, with a student
assistance program. I understand that this gentleman, Mr. Singer, had applied for a
Microsoft-certified course. He received some funding from Human Resources Development and
employment insurance and is now applying to get the rest of his funds from the B.C.
student assistance program. The difficulty he's having is that this Microsoft-certified
course is not certified for Okanagan University College. As a result, it doesn't have a
code, so in turn he cannot get funding for his course. What he's commenting on is that the
Open Learning Agency has a similar course, and it would obviously put himself and his
family at somewhat of a disadvantage, having to travel down to the coast to take the same
course. I guess what the question I'd be asking here is
Hon. A. Petter: Let me apologize to the member at the onset, hon. Chair, because he did pass this to me some time ago and I got preoccupied with other issues. I've now had a chance to share the letter with staff. If the member wouldn't mind going on to some other questions, then perhaps in ten minutes we could come back to it, and I'd be better prepared, based on staff advice, to give some guidance.
[1535]
J. Weisbeck: That will be fine. Thank you very much.
I have another issue here. Yesterday during our discussion of tuition fees, I brought
some of these issues forward. A document was done by OUC called "Caught in a
Crunch." It talks about the funding crunch that currently exists at OUC. I want to
talk just a little bit about the discrepancies within various institutions around the
province as far as funding is concerned. The comment here in this executive summary is:
"Our region, for instance, gets about one-third of the provincial per-capita average
in terms of expenditures on post-secondary education. Regionally, the per-capita
expenditure has fallen by 2 percent while the provincial average has risen by 3.2
percent." This is obviously creating a situation at OUC; among other things, it's
creating a shortfall at OUC. They commented further in this statement: "Provincial
per-capita expenditure on post-secondary education has risen from $306.72 per person in
1992-93 to $317.05 in 1998-99. Regionally, the per-capita expenditure has fallen to
$103.59 in 1998-99 from $105.72 in 1992-93." They also said: "The effective
provincial funding received by OUC on a per-student basis
I also was reading an article recently in the Times Colonist which showed that North Island College has a similar situation, being the lowest-funded of the province's six small colleges. The average funding for small colleges is $133 per capita, but NIC receives only $89 per capita, although it serves the largest population of the six colleges.
So I realize that there are some discrepancies out there, and it's created some problems with some of the colleges and universities. I wonder if the minister could respond to this discrepancy in funding.
Hon. A. Petter: If the minister wants a detailed answer, I can certainly get back to him with one. In general, the distribution of FTEs is based upon population growth, participation rates and utilization factors. So, for example, if you have an institution in an area where there has been a higher-than-average participation rate, it may fall, relative to other jurisdictions where we're trying to increase the participation rate because there has not been the same access to education in that area. That may create the appearance of a relative decline in position by an institution in an area that has had a history of very high success. That's not a sign of disparity or a sign of retrenchment; it's a sign that we are in fact targeting resources into areas of the province in which participation rates have been lower.
I indicated previously in this debate that we have had some considerable success in getting participation rates up in areas where they have previously been down. It's like anything else. When the position of those institutions that are in areas with lower-than-average participation rates goes up, the relative position of those that have higher-than-average participation rates appears to go down, even though they're still doing very well.
The number of FTEs has gone up substantially, I know, at Okanagan University College. I'm surprised by the reference to the per-student funding going down, because in fact it's gone up from $5,866 to $5,986 from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. That's quite a substantial increase in funding, and it doesn't represent a decline at all.
J. Weisbeck: I'm interested to note that it would appear to be that some of these institutions are getting penalized for being successful. You're saying that funding drops as participation rates increase. That sort of worries me.
[1540]
Hon. A. Petter: No, not at all. And I may have solved the mystery of participation
on the per-capita
It's not a question of punishing institutions or penalizing institutions that have been
successful, at all. It's a question of using that success as an example to other
institutions so that they too can increase participation rates within their areas so that
students in those areas enjoy the same opportunity. So we've increased
[ Page 12623 ]
region favoured over another. We want to make sure that students throughout the province gain the same access.
I'll give North Island College as an example. North Island College has had a very low participation rate -- in part because of the far-flung communities. We targeted some additional FTEs this year at North Island College, specifically because they said that they had the capacity and desire to increase their participation rates, to bring them up from the bottom and bring them closer to the average. We want to support them in that. I'm sure the member does as well. He doesn't want students in the North Island to be less likely to go on to post-secondary education than students in the Okanagan. We want students in the North Island to benefit in the same way students in the Okanagan do.
J. Weisbeck: I'm sorry -- I still don't see how you get a stimulation of
participation if you start penalizing somebody. But nonetheless
As a result, OUC
I want to read into the record that
Hon. A. Petter: We had a discussion yesterday, as well, about the fact that institutions have some latitude to make their own decisions regarding their priorities and in some cases choose to drop courses in favour of other courses. That is appropriate, because it gives them the flexibility to respond to local needs and to direct the funding that they receive -- both the funding that is renewed from previous years and the increases they receive -- into areas that are most in need of being fulfilled. The college received 120 student FTEs this year, I believe. They've chosen to do some reallocation in addition to the new FTEs. That's their right to do so.
I do have a bit of an answer in respect to the question the member passed over in written form -- or the question he asked with respect to the information written for him. As I understand it, the individual who has raised the concerns here is an employment insurance client, and all of the funding should be provided by HRDC. It's not supposed to be requiring clients to seek student loans. Furthermore, it's up to the institution to determine which of their programs will be eligible for student financial assistance. That's a matter that's left with the institution to determine.
[1545]
J. Weisbeck: Thank you for that answer on such short notice.
I have two final questions here; these are some of my student questions. Then we'll move off to ITAC. These questions are from Chad Peterson and Mike Easton from Simon Fraser. "Would it be possible to redirect education funds that are spent on less essential courses and services and target that money to increase the funding of computer programs?" The second question is: "Why aren't some types of public-private partnerships being promoted if education funding is so sparse?"
Hon. A. Petter: It is possible to target funding for technical courses such as computer courses. In fact, that's exactly what the government has done. Of the new FTEs that were announced for this year -- some 2,900 -- 700 were targeted for technology-related courses and areas.
I don't recall if the member said where the student came from. But if, like so many student questions he's read, they came from the University of Victoria, there is in fact a new software engineering course, I believe, offered at the University of Victoria as a direct result of last year's announcement of 500 new spaces. So 1,200 new spaces throughout the system, throughout the province at institutions like the University of Victoria, are providing some influence.
On the other hand, we're going to have a tremendous need for teachers in this province as well. We discussed that earlier with respect to universities, but the same could be said of school boards. There is a big bulge of teachers who are going to be coming to retirement age in the next few years. We're going to have to replace those and meet those needs. You have to be careful that you're not trading off one need to fulfil another. That's why institutions do have some flexibility in resolving these matters.
In respect of public-private partnerships, the government is pursuing public-private
partnerships. Perhaps the best example of that
The second example is that the B.C. knowledge development fund provides 40 percent funding towards research infrastructure at colleges and universities. The federal government matches it with 40 percent, and the private sector then comes up with 20 percent. It's a form of collaboration around research to encourage public-private partnerships in very important research that will both help generate jobs and encourage researchers to congregate around institutions in British Columbia.
The third is just a localized example of an institution here in Victoria, Camosun College. Camosun College partnered last year with EDS Systemhouse. EDS has moved its regional headquarters to Victoria, I'm very proud to say -- a major company. They have entered into an arrangement with Camosun College in which they provide funding support to Camosun College for equipment, and Camosun College provides training in technical skills that are relevant to the needs of EDS and other like companies. It's a very good arrangement.
The short answer to all that is that we're doing exactly that. We're encouraging partnerships, provided -- and I want to reinforce what I said yesterday -- they're done in a way that's consistent with and do not undermine the pedagogical objectives of the institutions, the educational needs of the
[ Page 12624 ]
students. If they advance those needs, great; if they impede those needs, then obviously they are partnerships that should not be pursued.
J. Weisbeck: The member for Chilliwack had a question. I'll let him finish and have the final question on post-secondary education.
B. Penner: I have a couple of questions related to Tech B.C., otherwise known as the Technical University of British Columbia. If my memory serves me correctly, Tech B.C. was legally established on December 5, 1997, when the government officially proclaimed the Technical University of British Columbia Act, which had been passed in this Legislature some months previously.
[1550]
Since that time, a number of us have received newsletters on a periodic basis and other literature from the board of directors of that newly created institution, indicating that sometime soon, they will start teaching students. In fact, some of the literature looks like this -- a brochure I received recently on fairly expensive-looking paper containing nice pullouts and diagrams and so forth. But my question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: how many students has Tech B.C. actually taught at this stage?
Hon. A. Petter: I believe that in the past year, which was their startup year, it was probably 30 students. The target for the coming year -- for the year we're in -- is 250 students.
B. Penner: One of the ongoing issues, which I don't think has been completely resolved, is the construction of a new building to house the Technical University. My understanding is that in the interim, the plan is to rent space in a shopping mall in Surrey and conduct classes in that rented premise. Can the minister bring us up to date as to where his ministry is at in securing space for conducting classes for the new university and when a new facility will be open to students?
Hon. A. Petter: I did answer a number of questions on this very topic earlier on in these estimates, and the member might want to refer to those. But the short answer is that an agreement was reached last year with the municipality of Surrey, whereby Surrey will provide land at the Surrey Central SkyTrain station. Planning has been going on, and discussions, concerning the nature of the facility to ensure that it meets the needs of the Technical University and provides the maximum flexibility and best facility for their needs. There is also a desire to have a facility that will facilitate partnerships with the private sector and other partners in technical education and technical research.
There are also further negotiations that are hopefully in the final stages of being resolved with Surrey and others concerning issues such as parking, for example, and in addition, issues concerning other requirements that Surrey had, such as the development of some commercial space in association with or on the same footprint as the university. So that work has been ongoing, and I'm very hopeful that a more definitive announcement can be made concerning the actual nature of the facility, its construction schedule, budget, etc., in the coming months.
B. Penner: Well, that was the answer we got last year when I asked the same question of the minister. It appears that very little progress has been made in terms of finalizing plans for a new building. Let me be a bit more specific. Has a budget been created for constructing a new facility? Is there a budget in place? Can the minister tell us how much the government is prepared to spend to create a new facility?
Hon. A. Petter: There certainly is a budgetary figure in mind, based on a mandate from Treasury Board, but given that some of these matters are subject to negotiation and to discussions concerning the size of the institution, I don't think I'll commit myself to a specific figure. In the past, just to give the member some sense of it, the sense that there would be a public investment in the range of $75-100 million in this facility was suggested. Certainly that is a range which I would say probably still applies.
B. Penner: I note that the government first announced a commitment to build a new technical university five years ago. Here we are today, and it seems like we're still some way from finalizing plans for getting this thing fully implemented. Perhaps that's not unusual, but it seems to me that it has taken quite a period of time, and we're all getting older in the process.
[1555]
In fact, in the amount of time that's gone by since the government announced its intention, a student could have enrolled and completed a four-year degree and graduated and gotten on and, hopefully, found a job -- if not in this province, then somewhere else. Yet here we are today, and it doesn't appear as though a firm budget is in place. I wonder if the minister could tell us if a business plan has been prepared for Tech B.C. and, if so, if he's prepared to make that public.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure that if we had rushed ahead, the member would have accused us of not taking the time to plan the institution properly. I guess that's both the advantage and the role of being in opposition. I see another member nodding his head.
The fact is that Tech B.C. is not just a structure. Structure will be important, but the major focus has been on developing programming. This is going to be a very unique and quite exciting institution, one that is designed to add value to existing institutions, to articulate their programming, to broker programming to meet particular needs and to develop partnerships with the private sector. Translating this vision into reality has certainly taken some time in terms of establishing relationships with other institutions and with the private sector and developing a curriculum. And yes, there has been work going on by Tech B.C. to develop a business plan as well. If the member is interested in that, I can certainly make efforts to share that information with him.
The facility itself is one that has to meet those unique needs. Again, it's taking time to ensure that we take advantage of what is really a unique opportunity, provided by the city of Surrey, to provide land without cost to the province for the construction of the new Tech B.C. facility. But Surrey is anxious -- as are we -- that it be done in a way that encourages the redevelopment of the Surrey centre area generally. Of course, the university is very concerned that it be done in a way that meets the pedagogical needs of the university, which is going to deliver some of its programs at a physical location and others through virtual means, through the Internet.
B. Penner: Just to encapsulate his answer, is the minister giving his assurance that he will release a copy of the business plan for Tech B.C.?
[ Page 12625 ]
Hon. A. Petter: It's not mine to release; it's the institution's to release. But I'm sure that they are thinking of releasing that business plan in a timely way. I'm happy to communicate the member's interest in that plan and to make sure that he is a recipient of it when it is publicly released.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much has been spent by or on behalf of Tech B.C. since the government's intention to build that new university was announced. As I stated earlier, it's been about five years now. I know I've received a number of publications on behalf of Tech B.C., and it's my understanding that they also have some staff already hired. In fact, I received a letter last year -- dated March 23, 1998 -- on Tech B.C. letterhead, which states: "We are now in the early stages of hiring faculty members and staff, with an average of one full-time person every two weeks joining our Tech B.C. team." About a month ago it was reported in the Vancouver Sun -- on April 20, 1999 -- that Tech B.C. now has a staff of 50, including 17 faculty members. I wonder if the minister can provide us with figures as to how much has been spent by Tech B.C. to date, as well as the number of staff and faculty already hired by that new institution.
[1600]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, well, it is necessary to hire faculty and staff in order to get a university off the ground. That's one of the up-front costs of any new institution. Tech B.C. has been working hard to attract the best quality of both staff and faculty that they can. I believe that if you were to include the total staff and faculty complement, it would be something in the range of 50. The amount spent last year was $6.5 million, the year before that, $2.8 million, and the year before that, $850,000. So the member can calculate from that the total expenditure to date.
B. Penner: It's my understanding that the budget for the current year is $11.3 million. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.
B. Penner: I've been asked on behalf of the board of directors of the University College of the Fraser Valley to make some inquiries as to their proposed phase 3 for the Chilliwack campus. The minister may recall that it was a proposal to replace a building that's now about 25 years old -- consisting mostly of administration, faculty offices and some scientific lab classes -- with a new building. The existing building has a number of health-related concerns regarding mould that is prevalent in that building. It has at least been reported in the local media to have caused some students and staff members to go home ill from time to time.
Prior to the last election, the government was hinting strongly that this phase 3 was on the very verge of being given the green light. In fact, the NDP candidate for Chilliwack, Rollie Keith, made comments to that effect during the campaign in 1996. Shortly after the provincial election, on May 28, 1996, the current government announced a capital freeze. Phase 3 was caught in that freeze.
I was just reviewing the Hansard debate that took place in the summer of 1996 between myself and the previous Minister of Advanced Education, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. At that time he indicated that he thought cabinet would make a decision about phase 3 by the winter -- referring to the winter of 1996-1997.
It's now the spring of 1999. The board of directors at the University College of the Fraser Valley are wondering whatever happened to phase 3. I wonder if the minister could inform people in my riding and the students of the University College of the Fraser Valley, as well as the board of directors of that institution, if they should continue working towards phase 3 or if in fact this government does not have any intention of moving forward with that proposal.
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that something like $40 million has been spent on
capital improvements on the University College of the Fraser Valley in the last two terms
of this government. There is this proposal for an additional phase, which
While I appreciate that the member wants us to spend more, given the amount that has already been invested and given other priorities, it is not going to be a project that will be funded in this year's capital envelope. It is on the list of capital priorities that we brought forward for consideration for next year. But the decision was made by government to try to direct capital dollars, as much as possible, in the post-secondary sector in a way that reflected certain priorities to upgrade existing facilities where necessary. This has made the list, but it hasn't yet been funded, and therefore we'll have to keep trying to get it funded. But I do point out to the member that some $40 million has been spent on this institution in recent years.
B. Penner: I believe that when the initial phase 3 proposal was put to this government, it carried a price tag of about $11 million, as indicated by the minister. When the capital freeze was announced following the last election, the board of directors went back, and I think they presented the government with a scaled-down proposal. They reworked the architectural drawings and came back with a proposal in the range of, I believe, $8 million for a somewhat more modest facility. I'm not sure just which proposal is now being entertained by the minister or his ministry. I presume it's the more modest proposal.
[1605]
But the information I get from the board of directors is just that having this proposal out there is causing some uncertainty. They don't know whether the university's energy is best put towards pursuing this proposal or whether they should move on. That's the reason for me asking the question of the minister.
Hon. A. Petter: It's certainly worth pursuing. As I say, it is on the priority list to continue to be pursued. I think the member is right. There is a scaled-down proposal which, if funding were approved, would likely be the level of funding that would be approved. The numbers I have here I take to reflect the original proposal, which, as the member indicates, has been scaled back.
B. Penner: I'll pass on the minister's comments to the board of directors at the University College of the Fraser Valley.
I've just about finished with my participation in these estimates, but I can't let this year go by without again refer-
[ Page 12626 ]
ring the minister's attention to the still-empty engineering school at the former Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. I debated with the minister at some length last year about that facility. Just to recap, that was a $13 million building that the federal government built and completed even after they announced their intentions to close the military base itself. That building has 76,000 square feet, about 27 classrooms, 40 offices and a 300-person theatre. In the year that's gone by, nothing has happened at that building, except that it has deteriorated somewhat due to lack of use and probably due to lack of sufficient upkeep. I'm just raising this matter today to register my continuing concern and my belief that we need to find some way of using a still valuable asset, rather than letting it go to waste.
In this era of increasing debt in British Columbia, I think it's incumbent upon us to find ways of using resources. The federal government seems, at this stage, to be quite content to have that facility sit idle. I think that's wrong, I think people in my community believe that's wrong, and I think that the more British Columbians learn about the potential for that facility, the more they will think it's wrong. I merely ask that the minister be an advocate on behalf of British Columbians to somehow harness the potential of that facility and consider creative solutions or alternatives in finding some way we can put that asset to work for students and all British Columbians.
I don't know if the minister's in a position to make any additional comments, but it probably falls into his bailiwick for two reasons: first, as Minister of Advanced Education, and second, as Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I note that the federal government does have legal ownership of that former military base, but I'd like to see the province take a bit more of an active role in challenging the federal government to do something productive or to allow us to do something productive with that facility, if we have a proposal.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm quite happy to continue to look at possible uses. The member did raise this matter last year, and I know that staff have looked at the facility. I think he raised it last year as an alternative to the Tech B.C. site, and it was our judgment that it was not a suitable use.
The member is probably in a better position than I am to consider whether it might be suitable to use as a facility in lieu of the phase 3 proposal for the University College of the Fraser Valley. But perhaps that's a possibility he might want to consider. If he thinks it's doable, given his proximity and the fact that it's potentially much less costly -- we have to explore that -- than building an $8 million or $11 million facility at University College of the Fraser Valley, I'm certainly prepared to entertain that.
J. Weisbeck: That concludes our questions on post-secondary. I'd just like to thank the staff very much for all their answers.
The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has some questions on ITAC. So if we can move to
that next, please
[1610]
K. Krueger: I'm not sure if the minister needs time to bring some different people into the chamber. If so, I'll gladly wait for a brief recess.
Otherwise, I wonder if the minister might like to open with some comments about both the successes and the challenges of ITAC over the past year. Reviewing last year's estimates, there's a strong note of optimism -- still a lot of sense of newness to the program. The B.C. Liberals, the official opposition, continue to feel supportive of ITAC -- the initiative and the directions that have been set out. Certainly some challenges have come to our attention, and we'll work through those.
But right off the bat, I want to make sure to express our support for ITAC and for the people who are heading it up. I'm pleased to see Mr. Jothen in the chamber. We do feel supportive.
There's always a sense of negativity when we have to raise concerns. I'm sure the minister is aware that there are some fairly profound concerns from different groups of people, and we'll work through those. But I want to invite the minister to report to the House, essentially, on his sense of the successes and challenges of ITAC in the last year.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for his question. First let me introduce Kerry Jothen, who is the CEO of ITAC and who is joining me for this particular component of the estimates debate.
As the member knows, ITAC is a partnership of business, labour, education and government. It does have an arm's-length board. It has an industry-driven mandate, and it's working to expand the industry training system. Indeed, that's its major mandate, to make that system more responsive to the economy and labour market trends. I think there has been some considerable work done to get the organization up and running. It's a challenge because it is a new governance structure, it has an expanded mandate, and it does operate arm's-length from government. It's designed to reflect the priorities of the stakeholders as well as the needs of those who might benefit from the kind of training and skills that ITAC can provide.
Maybe I'll just refer to some of the
The challenges that it has include expansion from 20,000 to 50,000 training spaces; it has established both short- and long-term targets to achieve that. Some of the strategic objectives, as I say, are to increase the number of spaces leading to employment from 20,000 to 50,000 by the year 2005, to increase the number of high school participants in high-tech programs from 350 to 2,000, to lower the program unit costs and to increase the number of workers completing skills upgrading.
ITAC is pursuing a pretty ambitious and what we would call medium-term agenda. It also has some specific strategic targets for this year. One is to increase the number of training spaces by 2,400, to increase the participation of secondary school students by 30 percent and to increase the number of workers in skills upgrading by 90 percent. As well as dealing with many of the administrative challenges it has, it's also expanding programming into some exciting new areas. We often think of trades training as being carpentry and automotive -- people of my generation and maybe the member's generation -- but in fact, aerospace, tourism, information
[ Page 12627 ]
technology, film and multimedia are just some of the examples of areas that ITAC is entering into, and I think the agency is showing some real excitement and direction.
[1615]
I was at an announcement just last week of the new career technical centres that are being established by the province. It's a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education in partnership with ITAC to create centres in which high school students can pursue their high school education to gain credits that will then lead on to technical training through the college system and through spaces that are sponsored by ITAC. I can't possibly cover all the areas that ITAC has under its wing and some of the challenges that it's setting for itself, but those are a few.
K. Krueger: Certainly those are ambitious yet necessary goals, I believe, because we have an aging working population. We anticipate a tremendous number of jobs on the horizon, particularly with a new, shiny B.C. Liberal government one day soon and a rejuvenation of the provincial economy and a lot of construction in the province. We'd like to have the workforce ready. I'm advised in fact that even with the economy as tough as it is, there's a shortage of skilled labour right now. I've been speaking with the various construction associations, and there's a shortage right here in Victoria this summer in a number of the construction trades. So I'm sure that everyone in the House is cheering ITAC on in its efforts.
While somewhat reluctant to raise negatives, I think it's important that these matters are raised in the House and answered and addressed in the House. I'm going to quote, now and then, from documents provided to me by people who do have concerns about where we are in the development of all these initiatives. I think that all of us are learning to measure by results and to judge our success by what we actually deliver on the ground. There's a concern on the part of many people that the focus of ITAC, as reflected in the way its funding is spent, is shifting and has already shifted dramatically from apprenticeship training to other initiatives. I wonder if the minister would respond to that, including the relative numbers.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's efforts to curb his natural tendency to be partisan and negative.
The shift the member is referring to is, I think, nothing to be concerned about. What ITAC is trying to do is retain efforts and resources in the areas of traditional trades, where those trades are required and are needed, as they often are, but at the same time capture some of the very exciting and productive opportunities that exist within new areas, such as graphic arts, film training and the like. So there is an attempt here to try to maintain the best of existing trades training, to try to encourage more students to participate in those traditional trades.
If I may say, generally, I think that we in North America have not done as good a job as European countries in fostering pride and in supporting students who may not be academically oriented but who may be incredibly skilled and accomplished if given the support to pursue trades training. I think the efforts like the career technical centres and what ITAC is doing are evidence of this government's commitment to that.
At the same time, ITAC has a mind and an eye to some of the exciting new opportunities that are being created in technical areas -- areas like film, multimedia and the like -- and is encouraging students to gain some of the technical skills. Aerospace would be another area where these kinds of skills can ensure that B.C. students fill jobs that are in fact opening and, by doing so, can help to grow the economy without the necessity of a disruptive change in political direction that, I'm sure, would not be welcomed by the people of British Columbia.
[1620]
K. Krueger: I was hoping that, included in the minister's answer, there would be an actual numerical breakdown of the funding on entry-level training versus apprenticeship training and the number of people training in the two areas.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me preface my remarks by saying that entry-level and apprenticeship are both in respect of traditional trades. So it's not a trade-off between traditional trades that takes place here. The dollar amounts are, with respect to entry-level, $42,577,000, and in the case of apprenticeship technical training, $17.9 million. I think that in both cases those reflect an increase over last year's expenditure level.
K. Krueger: Again, any of what the minister has characterized as negative information that I have to introduce here comes from other sources than B.C. Liberal research. These are people who have concerns. I'm going to get the concerns on the record and look forward to the minister's answers.
This is a submission from the construction trades area:
"It is a continuing lament of industry dependent on the supply of apprentices that government funding of apprenticeship has decreased or been eliminated, while other forms of training receive more funding.
"Equally irksome to the disparity of governing representation is that of funding. It is our understanding from sources within ITAC that entry-level training has recently had allocated $45 million to provide ELTT to 5,500 persons. Apprenticeship, for a comparison, received $15 million for approximately 15,000 persons."
Those dollar figures are somewhat different, but not remarkably so, from what the minister just gave us. Even accepting the minister's numbers completely, there are still obvious concerns about the breakdown between the two phases of this program.
The letter goes on to say:
"While it is recognized there are variants such as classroom instructional time which explain relative differences, it ignores the obvious to note the per-person ITAC budget allotment is $1,000 per apprentice versus $8,181 per ELTT candidate.
"To continue the comparison, for each FTE ten-month student, we are advised, a college receives $12,000 plus $1,000, for a total of $13,000 from government. The same training facility (college) receives a maximum of $75 per day per apprentice.
"It has been argued -- indeed, it is the opinion of some -- that a college does not expend $13,000 per ELTT student but, instead, uses the revenue derived from that source to supplement other college programs.
"College representatives on ITAC may be in a 'conflict of interest' when faced with decisions which may favour one type of training over another. Their dependence on government funding that is allocated according to political and social agendas makes them susceptible to supporting programs that 'profitably' sustain their employers' revenue sources."
I would like the minister's response to that: why it is deemed advantageous to allot that much more per ELTT candidate than per apprentice and whether, in fact, there is any grain of
[ Page 12628 ]
truth to this proposition that colleges may be put in something of a conflict-of-interest position through the way the program is set up and administered.
[1625]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, there's a lot raised by that submission. Let me just deal with a few points of it. First of all, with respect to entry level and trades training, ITAC is intending to pursue a review involving the industry and stakeholders, concerning the relationship between the two, to try to address some of these issues. The fact is that the budget this year has increased for both, and the total budget increase is in the range of $900,000. I believe about $400,000 of that is with respect to apprenticeship training and about $500,000 is for entry level. We did add 150 new spaces at colleges for ITAC spaces.
In addition, I think the apparent discrepancy the member references in terms of FTE
support
In respect of the role of colleges, the colleges are part of the partnership that is ITAC, along with industry and labour. It's not a matter of any conflict or inconsistency; it's a matter of each party having the opportunity to benefit from the relationship.
K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's response and the fact that these concerns are already being addressed through the process described.
The people in construction trades, across the board, express a deep concern about the deskilling of the workforce in British Columbia. In the trades that they're involved in, they also make a very valid point about apprentices being taxpayers and being able to contribute to the economy in a much more direct way than a lot of students are able to during the course of their education. They think -- and I think it's a good argument -- that apprenticeship therefore is something to be prized and supported heavily by government. I think those are good points.
The same letter went on to deal with the issue of the product -- the ELTT trainee
versus the apprentice. The organization which wrote to me
"Several trades are questioning the wisdom of producing a semi-skilled tradesperson. While there is some benefit for an entry-level trained person to eventually decide to enter an apprenticeship, too many cease training and enter the workforce to compete with skilled, fully apprenticed tradespeople. The purpose of apprenticeship training is certainly defeated. Surely there was enough evidence in the Barrett commission report to show that poorly trained workers contributed to 'leaky condos'."
Of course, the opposition's well aware that that's another huge issue, which only touches on this issue. There are a lot of organizations and people who have to answer for the leaky-condo issues. The question of this organization is: why allow industry and trades training to perpetuate the problems? I wonder if the minister would comment on the deskilling issues and the allegations that these organizations are raising.
Hon. A. Petter: What ITAC is pursuing is a very aggressive policy of upskilling, not deskilling, British Columbians. The reflection of government's commitment is in the increased budget that's been provided for this year.
In terms of the representation of the construction trades, I guess I can say no more than that the head of the B.C. Construction Association is on the board. There is representation of carpenters and the electrical trades, and with the influx of resources, I think that is a strong indication of this government's commitment to trades training generally.
I add to that the initiative around career technical centres, which I referred to earlier, and the efforts that are being made in the K-to-12 system to promote trades training. I think it all adds up to a very aggressive initiative around upskilling and a commitment to use ITAC as a vehicle.
[1630]
ITAC is a new institution. It has had some birthing pains, if I can put it that way. It's an institution that is just finding itself and its mandate. I think it's doing an extraordinary job in moving ahead in order to meet a very aggressive set of challenges and goals that it set for itself, which I outlined at the beginning. These have nothing to do with deskilling and have everything to do with promoting skills and taking advantage of the talents of British Columbians -- in some cases, untapped talents of British Columbians -- that can be harnessed for this kind of training.
B. Barisoff: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce a group of grade 7 students from Okanagan Falls Elementary School, along with their teacher Garry Sutherland, and chaperons Bonnie Kandulski, Debbie LaFramboise, Georgina Anderson, Brenda Willson, Brian Thomas and Victor Raposo. Would the House please make them welcome.
K. Krueger: In going back to the minister's response, again, this side of the House is supportive of ITAC and of the funding that's going in that direction. The point these people are making is that the weighting appears to be strongly in favour of entry-level trades training rather than apprenticeship training. There will be a price to be paid down the road in terms of a deskilled workforce, if we have a much higher percentage of non-apprentices working than people who've made it through their apprenticeship and become journeymen -- if that's still the correct term. Perhaps the minister could comment on what drives the ratio. How is that funding allocated? Who decides -- and why -- how much is available for apprenticeship training versus how much is available for ELTT?
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, some of the issues that the member refers to date back some considerable time before ITAC -- the question of entry-level versus apprenticeship training. One of the roles that ITAC fulfils is to start to set some of those directions itself, based on the input of those who are directly affected and partners in ITAC. Government did provide additional funding for entry-level training through some of our
[ Page 12629 ]
allocation in the college system, but that was in response to ITAC's request that we do so. ITAC then, within its budget, targets resources.
I just point out that entry-level training has been quite successful in placing students into jobs. I think that something like over 80 percent of students find jobs in entry-level training. I think that something like 30 percent go on to apprenticeships. I think the whole value of having ITAC there is that ITAC can, based on the partnership that exists and the knowledge that exists within that partnership, make these decisions for itself and help to resolve some of the differences that exist historically around the value of investing in one kind of training or another.
I'd also say that there's been no reduction of commitment to apprenticeship training. Indeed, as this year's budget indicates, there has been an increase this year in dollar commitment to apprenticeship training.
K. Krueger: ITAC obviously still reports to two ministers and two ministries. With the funding coming from Advanced Education in the coming year, it appears to many that the evolution appears to be running toward Advanced Education and away from the Labour ministry.
Questions continue to arise about the composition of the commission. Last year the member for Delta North canvassed the question of how appointees were determined. That may have changed between then and now. I wonder if the minister could update the House on the selection process for appointees to the commission.
[1635]
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the latter point, the composition is a function of consultation with the various stakeholder groups -- the Business Council, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the like. They put forward names, and then the government makes the appointments based on those recommendations and, I think, by and large follows pretty assiduously the recommendations that are made. It certainly takes strong account of them.
The shifting in funding to this ministry is simply a reflection of administrative convenience. It does not in any way reflect a diminution of the role of the Minister or Ministry of Labour. I would remind the member that this ministry is the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and if anything, I hope what it signals is that we want to make sure that we put more focus on training and on trades training in this ministry. It certainly shows no reduction in the attachment to ITAC and its mission from the Ministry of Labour.
K. Krueger: Have there been any changes in the selection process for appointees to the commission over the last year?
Hon. A. Petter: The selection process has only been run twice, and it's been the same both times.
K. Krueger: Having been one of the team that opposed Bill 26 as zealously as we could all last summer, I find myself in the curious position of now carrying forward concerns from the very people and industry that we thought the government was catering to, frankly, with Bill 26. One of those concerns, for example, is that the appointees nominated by the B.C. Federation of Labour are not reflecting the knowledgable people in the construction industry. The construction industry is very unhappy about that.
They feel as though the mandate of ITAC was that training would be run for and by industry users and consumers of the training services provided. They feel as though the representation from institutions, colleges and government is weighted too heavily towards taxpayer-funded appointees. They think that the result is beneficial to colleges and their infrastructure and their administrative pyramids. The result is that instead of having apprentices coming out to industry and journeymen completing their course, they are getting people out of the college programs who have learned a little bit about a lot of things but, they say, are not really qualified to do anything. That's probably an exaggeration. That's what I'm told.
The question to the minister is: is there a possibility, in his mind, that the way that the commission is set up is giving rise to justification for these complaints?
Hon. A. Petter: There are 16 private sector representatives on the board: eight from labour and eight from the business community. There are only four college representatives on the board. Whenever you get one of these boards, I suppose, people, from their point of view, always think it could be better configured if only people other than themselves weren't represented or as well represented. I think there's a good balance on the board. As for the choice of representatives, each sector has a strong interest in appointing the best-qualified people, because they're more likely to get the best benefit from having done so.
Again, I suppose one sector can disparage another sector's choice of individuals, but I think it's in the nature of this partnership that each partner gets to choose who best represents their interests. I think it's in everyone's interest to work in the spirit of cooperation, based upon that assumption.
[1640]
K. Krueger: I guess the bottom line is that the construction industry feels that better support is needed for the apprenticeship side of the program. Again, just to make sure their concerns are on the record, I'll read a couple of quotes from two different organizations. One, with regard to the composition of the commission, says:
"The construction industry, from ITAC's inception, advised that the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Federation of Labour were the wrong sources from which to seek certain apprenticeship appointees to the commission. Neither of these employer or employee groups represent construction trade interests, which still dominate the apprenticeship programs. In consequence there are few, perhaps two persons, who have any direct knowledge of construction trade apprenticeship training.
"The organizational concept upon which ITAC was established and sold to industry was that ITAC was to be run for and by industry -- users or consumers of training services. While it is reasonable to invite 'new industry' reps, there is no good reason such significant representation [exists] from training institutions and colleges. The ITAC model preferred by the users and consumers -- industry -- did not envision a commission dominated by government and training institutes."
I take the minister's point that he feels only one-third are taxpayer-funded.
The letter goes on:
"Similarly, the colleges and training facilities' role might be foremost that of service provider. Secondarily, they are training professionals and as such may advise on the content and delivery of training.
[ Page 12630 ]
"We in industry, by way of on-the-job training and government funding, are the purchasers of their services. It is an affront to any consumer that a sellers' combine should determine the cost, content, quality and distribution of the service which is a guaranteed sale. Stated another way: put the money in the hand of the buyers and the buyers will find the best value for money. Those who cannot deliver a sufficient quality of service at a competitive price will perish."
It isn't as though I'm getting that input from a single source.
Here's another letter from another contractors' association, which says:
"When ITAC was originally proposed, it was to be run for and by industry
. . . . The structure, however, has not developed into an arm's-length, effective, non-bureaucratic government agency that serves industry. Government needs to take action quickly to put ITAC back on course."The structural and operational problems are ongoing. Currently there is a proposal to shift the responsibility for ITAC from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Education."
Again, breaking from my quote, I heard what the minister said, and it will be on the record for these people who are concerned. That perception clearly is there in the construction industry. It's coming from many directions.
The letter goes on:
"If this change is implemented, it will have a further negative impact on its ability to serve and meet the needs of industry. At the urging of the TAC chairs, a committee was recently formed by ITAC to enable the education sector and industry to discuss and resolve program development concerns. It was promptly disbanded when the quantity and quality of ELTT programming was questioned by industry."
Would the minister comment on the truth of that statement?
Hon. A. Petter: The committee that the member refers to was not disbanded. It fulfilled its mandate, and now the review process I referred to earlier will take place.
Look, it's no secret that even within the construction sector there are many voices with many different perspectives. It's heartening to hear the member representing some of those voices that in the past he has not necessarily been empathetic to, as he himself referenced earlier in his debate.
Be that as it may, surely it's better to have those voices all inside the tent, working together in resolving their differences and resolving their differences with other educational providers -- which is exactly what this board is designed to do -- rather than having everyone retreat to their corners and work independently. Now, there's always a challenge when we do that. There's always a challenge when you bring groups together and ask them to cooperate. They've got to overcome some of their historical differences of perspective and work those out. It takes time, and sometimes there is aggravation along the way. That's part of the healthy process that ITAC is going through as it builds its mandate and gains buy-in for the work it undertakes. It is much better, in my view, than reverting to previous practice.
K. Krueger: The same letter, and it's a quick paragraph, says: "We now hear that the ITAC program committee has decided not to allow industry to make direct presentations on the requirements or development of programs. Instead, industry must present to ITAC staff and rely on them to explain the details and technicalities of the proposed program. The perception created is that industry is really not welcome at the table on any ITAC initiative." I would like the minister to respond to that, on the record.
Hon. A. Petter: It's a bit bizarre to say that industry is not welcome at the table when industry constitutes the largest, significant share of board members, as I've already indicated. It is the table.
[1645]
K. Krueger: Once again, that obviously isn't the way that this major component of B.C. industry sees it. But being that the minister and the senior representatives of ITAC are aware of those concerns, I trust there will be a focus on them in the coming year.
I have a letter from the Interior Forest Labour Relations Association that was directed to Mr. Jothen on March 8. It expresses concerns about the validity of the testing of apprentices, whether they were properly trained, if they're failing at the rate that they were and whether or not the tests themselves had been properly validated before they were administered. Rather than read another letter into the record, I'm hoping Mr. Jothen is familiar with the outcome of those concerns, and that the minister could respond.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by Mr. Jothen that, in fact, he requested staff to respond to those concerns, and they have done so. We don't know the specific details of that response, but presumably the letter writer has that response and can share it with the member, or we can provide a separate response to the member that covers the same matters.
K. Krueger: As I've been attending these construction association meetings, a concern has been voiced that apprentices are emerging from the program without having actually received the safety training that is required by government and without having the necessary safety training certificates -- for example, the WHMIS certificate. I wonder if the minister could comment on that -- whether there was a bit of slip in the program or whether this is factual.
Hon. A. Petter: In general, the standards adopted by ITAC require safety training to be provided and met. The actual certification process, which is separate from ITAC, may require further validation or procedure. If the member has some specific concern in mind and wants to communicate it to me -- or through me to Mr. Jothen -- I'd be happy to respond. But in general terms, where there's a safety component required for a particular kind of apprenticeship training, that should be a component of the program that's provided.
K. Krueger: I believe I'll ask the construction associations to write to the minister and outline exactly what certificates are missing. It seems to me it would be a reasonable expectation on their part that an apprentice would emerge from the program with all the required government safety training and certification.
Can the minister tell us what level has been reached on ITAC's goal to expand the number of secondary school apprentices?
Hon. A. Petter: The goal for this year is to increase the number of secondary school apprenticeships in ELTT from 350 to 500 students. Seventy of those will be achieved through the career technical centre expansion that I referred to earlier and the remaining 80 through expansion, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, of such opportunities in the secondary school program.
[1650]
[ Page 12631 ]
K. Krueger: This next issue
Hon. A. Petter: To answer in short, the proposal -- which, as I understand it, has been advanced by first nations in the Shuswap area -- is one that's viewed as certainly having positive potential by ITAC. It is just a proposal at this stage. However, there have been concerns raised by industry, some concerns that the model that's adopted be one that in fact does not, from the ministry's point of view, end up in deskilling -- the member's concern, reflected earlier. I take it there's going to be further work and discussion with groups to see if some of those concerns can be resolved before a decision is made as to whether or not the proposal goes ahead.
K. Krueger: I realize we're becoming somewhat pressed for time. I have sheaves of questions people want me to ask on the BMW issue, but I will not take the time to put them all on the record right now. I know that the ITAC people are certainly well aware of the two sides of the issue and very concerned about it. It seems to be something of a flashpoint for the concerns that we were discussing earlier, as the minister said, about deskilling and about what is the emphasis of ITAC and where we are going in this province with training.
There are also significant safety concerns that have been raised to me -- that these building maintenance workers will be working with electrical currents and with gas, things that have been considered areas that only fully certified journeymen should be involved in. I'm sure the minister is aware of those concerns -- a training and safety issue in these people's minds.
On the other hand, I gather that at the outset, when the Secwepemc people raised the prospect, there was a business case for at least qualifying journeymen to work on their own buildings and on reserve lands and so on. From the point of view of the construction industry, the proposal has grown way beyond that. So I appreciate the minister's outline of the status of that. If he has any further comments to assuage the concerns of the construction industry and to give Chief Ron Ignace and the Skeetchestn band, and aboriginal people in general who are concerned about this issue, some clarity on the status, perhaps he'd wrap up with those comments.
[1655]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: I think I'll just answer in general by saying that this is one of the initiatives that ITAC is pursuing in an effort to deal with the objective of providing more in the way of trades training for first nations people. I think it has considerable potential, but of course, like any other new initiative, it is controversial. ITAC wants to make sure that it doesn't proceed unless it does so in a way that adequately meets the objectives that it has set for itself in terms of both quality and delivery of the program.
J. Weisbeck: I thank the minister for those answers. I want to move on to ISTA,
so if you want to get the people that are required
I'm just interested to note that the PLN has been around for a while, and I realize it's a six-year plan. There are a number of concerns out there about the provincial learning network -- whether or not it's the most effective use of our dollars. The B.C. Internet Association said that they could have done the whole process for about $50 million less. So my first question is: what is the current status of the PLN? Secondly, just some comments on the B.C. Internet Association and the fact that they say that what's currently in place is cumbersome and more expensive than what they could offer.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, first let me introduce some of the staff who have joined me for this portion of the estimates debate. Seated to my left is Stuart Culbertson, who is deputy minister with respect to ISTA; and behind me and to the left is Calvin Shantz, who's executive director of science, technology and communications. Directly behind me is Carol Pereira, who is the manager of program support.
PLNet, I think, is proceeding very well. There were some concerns raised by Internet
service providers that I think have been addressed very successfully. Some of the cost
discrepancies that were raised by them were, I think, based upon a different form of
technology. In other words, what the provincial learning network provides is an intranet
system with very high capacity in terms of enabling communication between educational
institutions. Some of the cost comparisons were against an Internet system that would not
have had some of that same capacity. However, the underlying concern, I think, that they
brought to the table was that whatever system was put in place be one that harnesses and
takes advantage of the talents and skills and economic opportunities that are provided by
local Internet service providers. And so we did agree to work with them to ensure that
where possible, Internet service providers were provided with opportunities to make the
necessary connections to create the network and tie it to communities. Most recently we
have renewed that commitment and assured them that we will work with them in an effort to
try to help them to achieve some of their goals with respect to their participation in the
provincial learning network. I think, judging by press reports at least
J. Weisbeck: The initial plan was to hook up 1,700 public schools and 22 colleges. I'd just like to know: at what point is the implementation at? Who's connected, or how many are connected at this point?
[1700]
Hon. A. Petter: We're one day out of date. As of May 18, the number of new sites installed was 578, the number of grandfather sites meeting service level standards was 665 and total PLNet sites to date were 1,243.
[ Page 12632 ]
J. Weisbeck: One of the concerns that we had was that
Hon. A. Petter: Let me also introduce Lois Fraser, who is ADM of information technology services, who's seated behind me and to the left.
In creating a new system, obviously there are going to be challenges in terms of meshing the system with schools or colleges that already have various forms of connectivity. One of the ways we've met that challenge is to grandparent those relationships between existing Internet service providers and institutions so that they retain the capacity they had previously.
Yes, we've had to set certain standards for smaller schools, as opposed to larger, as a function of cost as we bring new schools on. We've grandparented the existing schools so that they retain the capacity they've had. In addition, there is some flexibility, depending upon cost and the ability of local Internet service providers to provide connectivity. There may be situations in which the standards the member cited will in fact be exceeded by virtue of the flexibility we have to try to accommodate the opportunity to use local Internet service providers.
J. Weisbeck: Another concern they had was that they felt that the whole concept was far too narrow in that you're gearing more to curriculum of students rather than some of the administrative functions that schools could benefit from. I wonder if you would comment on that.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I would say exactly the opposite of what the member's
question suggests. The fact that we chose an intranet rather than an Internet system
J. Weisbeck: I wasn't suggesting that there wasn't a potential. I'm saying that
this individual said that it wasn't being used and that there didn't seem to be a plan for
the use of that. But the answer you gave me, obviously -- that this is something that's
planned for the future
Hon. A. Petter: It will be up to the school boards to decide the extent to which
they harness that potential. But the fact that we have this system, the fact that this
intranet system is designed to provide them with the capacity to utilize the system both
administratively and educationally, in the pedagogical sense of educational needs
[1705]
J. Weisbeck: One of the concerns with the ISPs, as well -- particularly in some of the rural areas -- is that with the PLN going into some of these rural areas, it limits the ISPs having access. So the general public obviously wouldn't have access to intranet services, because it would be taken over by the PLN.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I think the member has sort of got back to front. This is not the case where the PLN will come in and displace an existing ISP. It might be the case that if the connection to the community is provided by an ISP, that will provide added capacity to the community beyond what the PLN would, in and of itself. That's one of the reasons why we have established this relationship with ISPs: to provide them with opportunities to provide that connection, so communities can in fact get the added benefit that would come from that.
So it's simply not the case that the provincial learning network is displacing ISPs. In fact, because of our relationship with ISPs, it will be providing new opportunities for ISPs that may translate into further connectivity for communities than would exist without the provincial learning network. The provincial learning network will not diminish the connectivity of communities in any way.
J. Weisbeck: Just for our own clarity, though, we're talking about an intranet service. Doesn't that exclude some people? No?
Hon. A. Petter: No, because the intranet service is connected to the Internet. ISPs can be part of creating -- I think the term is -- the architecture of the network and the connection of the network to the various nodes throughout the various communities. God, I'm going to start to sound like I know what I'm talking about -- but no danger of that. If staff weren't here, I wouldn't run that risk, I'm sure.
J. Weisbeck: There was an original cost projection of $123 million. I wonder if that's still the current number we're talking about.
Hon. A. Petter: That is still the budget. I just point out that this budget is carried, for the most part, by the Ministry of Education. But yes, that is the budget.
J. Weisbeck: I just have a couple of questions on the MDA purchase of B.C. OnLine. I'm more concerned about the process. It's my understanding that there was an RFP for the service, but then this RFP was pulled. Then, of course, MDA got the contract -- I'm using a short form here. There was no retendering. Would you please explain to me why this RFP was pulled and why it wasn't retendered?
[ Page 12633 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm going to tread a little tentatively here, because the negotiations around this were handled by the Ministry of Finance, most recently through BCAL. The member may want to pursue detailed questions with the Minister of Finance.
In general terms, though, obviously my ministry is responsible for B.C. OnLine, and therefore we have knowledge of this. But in general terms, what happened was that the original RFP was one that did not produce the outcome in terms of return that had been hoped for and was evaluated by PricewaterhouseCoopers in a very intensive review process. The determination was that the RFP was not going to be successful in bringing the kind of value for the on-line resource that the government had intended. The advice that was given and received and acted upon was to cancel the RFP and then proceed into a negotiation with one of the proponents based upon the evaluation process under the RFP.
But as I say, if you want more detail than that -- on why that was done, the numbers and all the advice -- the Minister of Finance would probably be in a better position than I to answer those questions.
[1710]
J. Weisbeck: If I could just have a brief explanation of the dollars exchanged. Are
we talking about a $55 million sale, but in turn we now have the public paying a surcharge
every time they want to access
Hon. A. Petter: There are two issues here. I know they've been linked by some columnists and others, but there really are two issues. One was a decision by government some time ago to put B.C. OnLine onto a commercial footing. In order to accomplish that, a service charge of $1.50 per transaction for day-to-day operations was attached to the on-line service. As part of that commitment, that charge would have been attached whether the service had gone to a private sector partner or not.
The arrangement with MacDonald Dettwiler was predicated on the service going to that commercial footing -- it is true -- but that was a separate matter. Based upon it going to a commercial footing, there was the opportunity to negotiate an acquisition fee for the value of the service and to create a partnership in which there are huge upside potentials for government to capture the value of that service being extended and marketed elsewhere as the result of the initiative and efforts of a very highly motivated and well-resourced private sector partner. This has created a win-win situation for MacDonald Dettwiler and for government in terms of revenues.
These are two matters. One is putting the service on a commercial footing; the other is then creating a public-private partnership in which the private sector partner will expand the service, create value through new relationships, market the service and generate further resources for the taxpayer beyond that which was generated simply by the commercialization of the service.
J. Weisbeck: I would just like to know
Hon. A. Petter: I'm looking at the clock. I'll give the short answer -- the very short answer.
I'd be happy to share a speech that I gave last week on this very topic to a local group in Victoria. One of the mandates that ISTA has taken on -- maybe the member is aware of this; maybe that is why he was kind enough to ask the question -- is to in fact use government as an opportunity to demonstrate how we can deliver a service to consumers in a way that takes advantage of some of the new technologies and some of the opportunities to provide to taxpayers and consumers of government services the most user-friendly, direct, efficient kind of service possible. So there is a major initiative underway within ISTA -- a lot of resources, work and energy being put in by some very talented people within ISTA.
The same kind of initiative that went into developing OnLine is now being directed into developing a vision for government -- an infosmart kind of vision -- to make sure that just as people now can get most of their banking records on-line, people will be able to access government services. The idea is to break down some of these silos of information banks that exist within government so that people can get information and register for various services and things in the most efficient way possible.
I would be happy to go on about it and give the member more information, but he has really quite correctly identified a major area in which government can move, and in which we want to move. I'd also say, just because we were talking about the MDA agreement, that the on-line service is a major opportunity for British Columbia to market its e-commerce potential -- the potential of that service -- worldwide. MDA is very confident of its ability to gain buyers for B.C. OnLine and the e-commerce potential that that service provides to other jurisdictions, like England and some U.S. jurisdictions.
R. Thorpe: I have just one quick question on vote 13. I note that B.C. OnLine has what looks like $4.8 million, or almost $4.9 million, allocated in expenses. With this sale now going through, what is the impact and the result of the expense to government to date -- or that will be revised.
[1715]
Hon. A. Petter: The $4.8 million reflects the in-house model, pre-MDA relationship. As I understand it, now that we're in the relationship with MDA, there will still be a cost recovery model. It will probably be based around a $2.8 million recovery but still be within the context of a thousand-dollar vote.
G. Plant: I want to pursue one or two issues in the area of the minister's responsibilities in relation to freedom of information and protection of privacy. The first is an issue around the adequacy of staffing and budgets for government ministries which have responsibilities as public bodies under the act. The minister may recall that approximately a year ago there was a bit of a flurry of public attention around this issue. It appeared that the government -- perhaps it was Treasury Board that initiated this -- had made a policy decision to reduce the budgets of government ministries across the board for what I guess you could call FOI compliance. Over the course of a period of some weeks and months, ministries responded to that directive from government, and there were some reductions in staffing. There was also a component of this debate that related to an expectation that government
[ Page 12634 ]
placed on ministries to increase their recoveries for this part of their responsibilities by increasing fees.
The deputy minister and the chief information officer, Mr. Culbertson, very kindly provided a letter to the Clerk of Committees because of some requests that were made by the committee that's currently reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's a committee that I'm a member of, as the minister may know. The letter, dated March 12, 1999, has a breakdown of the FTEs by ministry, which shows, across government, a reduction as follows. In '97-98 there were a total of just about 87-1/2 FTEs. For '98-99 that number was reduced to just about 76-1/4. I've always thought it's interesting to contemplate one quarter of a person, but I understand the reality of these calculations. Then, apparently, as of November '98 there was a further reduction to just over 70 full-time-equivalents. That's the context for the questions I want to ask the minister.
The first question is: can the minister inform us whether there has been any directive from Treasury Board or government this year -- the fiscal year that we're now in -- to implement any further cuts to staffing or to require ministries to increase their fee recoveries in respect of freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy matters?
[1720]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I can tell the member, and the answer is no.
G. Plant: That's helpful.
Now a more general question. The impact of these cuts or changes in staffing requirements probably has been different in some ministries than it has in others. One ministry in particular that often attracts some public commentary is the Ministry for Children and Families -- partly because there were, at least as recently as '97-98, as many as 24 full-time-equivalents there. That, I think, made it the biggest ministry in terms of staff dealing with FOI requests. One can well imagine the reasons why there would be more need for staff in that ministry. I can anticipate that from the government's perspective, there have been, hopefully, some efficiencies achieved in terms of administering the act, with the possible result that it may have been possible to maintain service levels with fewer staff. I can also imagine the possibility, though, that in some ministries these reductions in staff may have had an impact on service delivery.
Can the minister, given his responsibilities here, indicate his sense of whether or not there has been an impact on service delivery to the public because of these cuts?
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, I had a discussion with the privacy commissioner on this very topic just the other day. It's our sense that these cuts have been achieved, for the most part, without reducing access to service -- which of course was the objective. It's one of the reasons why in some ministries the cuts were not as great as was originally intended. Savings had to be made elsewhere, which was part of the exercise.
I would say, with respect to the Ministry for Children and Families -- and the member may want to explore this in some detail with the minister -- that there is a concern that the level of cuts is such that it is resulting in an unacceptable backlog. My understanding is that additional staff are going to be recruited back into that ministry to try to reduce the pressures that that ministry is under. That ministry has handled as many FOI requests -- my recollection is -- last year as the province of Alberta did for its entire government. It's a function of how open our FOI legislation is and how accessible it is. It's also a function of how heavily it falls on that one ministry. I think that one ministry, to my knowledge, is perhaps the one area of concern where additional resources are being targeted to correct or calibrate the need to balance savings with continued acceptable levels of information provision under the legislation.
G. Plant: I thank the minister for his invitation to pursue the Children and Families issue specifically there.
I realize that this is a fairly specific question. As of November, the FTE count was around about 70 across government. Does the minister have a number, a more updated figure, for the FTE count across government for staff dealing with freedom-of-information issues?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that it has increased by 0.97 over the figure in column 3. I'll be less facetious; it's about 71 right now. But there is some recruitment going on right now with respect to the Ministry for Children and Families that might add another five or so, at least in the short term.
[1725]
G. Plant: From the minister's perspective, the recruitment in the Ministry for Children and Families that he refers to sounds like a temporary initiative to deal with a backlog problem rather than a permanent increase in staffing -- although I may be guessing wrong.
Hon. A. Petter: No. The intention is to add that capacity permanently, so as to avoid the creation of backlogs because of the ongoing pressure that that ministry is under. Part of the theory in that ministry -- the member may remember, as I think we explored this in last year's debate -- is that there was, because of a change in adoption policy on disclosure, a big bulge of cases coming through. There was also greater experience being gained as requests were being handled. The feeling was that efficiencies could be achieved through that greater experience and as there was a tapering off of some requests. So essentially what is happening here is a sense that five additional staff are necessary in order to meet the demand on an ongoing basis without a huge backlog being created. So those staff are being recruited permanently to ensure that the ministry does not run into backlog problems, if I can put it that way.
G. Plant: I want to pursue another issue in the general context of access to information. I'm told that on the television program "Voice of the Province" a couple of weeks ago, Commissioner Flaherty stated that he was in favour of routine disclosure of government information. I'm sure that the minister knows what we're talking about -- that is, the idea that government should use every opportunity available to it, outside the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to make disclosure of documents that just simply ought to be in the public domain.
I raised this issue with the Ministry of Attorney General in our estimates debate, where I suggested to the Attorney General that the estimates process could be much enhanced if,
[ Page 12635 ]
for example, the minister simply made available to the critic the briefing book, which is prepared to help ministers through the estimates process. I suggested that the vast majority of the information in a briefing book is not such that the disclosure of it to opposition critics or anybody else would impair the ability of government to make good policy decisions. In fact, more disclosure of that sort might actually open up government in a way that would serve the public interest.
I'm interested in the minister's views on the idea of routine disclosure and whether the minister would be willing to take on the cause of advocate within government to expand routine disclosure of government documents and to try and make some changes in the culture of disclosure in government. Sometimes what happens -- not surprisingly -- is that there is a sort of a natural inclination to take a request for disclosure and look at it through the window of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act right away, rather than asking this question: well, here's a document created for government, but government is funded by taxpayers. Wouldn't it be in the general interests of the public if the document were just simply disclosed? I think there's room for improvement.
This is not even a partisan suggestion. I think it's just part of how governments work. They naturally tend, over time, to be more concerned about disclosure than they perhaps should be. I wonder if the minister is willing to take up the mantle, as it were, here.
Hon. A. Petter: Not only am I willing to, but in fact I am pleased to say that
that mantle has already been taken up by my staff, at my request. The member will recall
[1730]
Pursuant to that, a memo was sent out by my deputy minister to all other deputies to develop a strategy on a ministry-by-ministry basis to promote routine disclosure of documents. That work is ongoing, and I intend to be a strong advocate of routine disclosure, because, frankly, it's good public policy from two perspectives. One is that it can ensure that the information is available in the mostly timely way, but it can also ensure that the cost of providing that information is brought down to taxpayers. For both of those reasons, I'm quite happy to continue to champion the goal of routine disclosure. It's something, of course, that the privacy commissioner is also a strong advocate of.
G. Plant: I'm interested to hear about the memorandum that the minister refers to.
Interjection.
G. Plant: I could probably get a copy of that memo, if I wanted to.
Is there
Hon. A. Petter: No, this is an intention to have a process in which ministries generate plans or strategies that are submitted back to ISTA. Then ISTA will work with those ministries to implement those plans and will do it in a fairly systematic way across government, so that it can be done effectively and consistently and, hopefully, be successful and thorough-going.
G. Plant: With the objective in mind of enhancing routine disclosure?
Hon. A. Petter: Oh, I'm so disappointed; I thought we were making such progress till that question. Absolutely -- with the objective in mind of enhancing as much as is possible the notion of routine disclosure of information -- and in case I get another question -- that would not otherwise be disclosed routinely but for such an initiative. I think I've covered off all of the lawyerly concerns that might be brought to bear.
G. Plant: My colleague says that there should be a rule against two lawyers participating in an estimates debate.
I just simply want to make sure that we have the minister's commitment there as clearly as possible, and I'm glad of it. I actually think that it's a worthwhile objective and quite likely not as easily achieved as perhaps some of us would like, just because it's going to actually involve people across a wide variety of government departments having to sit down and think about how they create, record and ultimately disclose information, which is a major part of how they do their job.
I want to ask questions -- perhaps just one, but we'll see how it goes -- about one other issue. The federal government introduced a bill, Bill C-54. The bill does a number of things, one of which is to purport to regulate privacy in the private sector. I have to admit that I have not lately followed the progress of that bill through Parliament, but subject to that caveat, I'm going to ask the question that I want to ask anyway.
The section in Bill C-54 which expands the regulation of privacy in the private sector does so in a number of ways -- one or two of which are, from a constitutional perspective, entirely uncontroversial because, essentially, the government of Canada is attempting to regulate privacy in what is clearly the federal sector. But there's also a provision in that bill in which the federal government appears to be on the verge of regulating privacy in that part of the private sector which would otherwise ordinarily fall within the regulatory field of provincial governments.
[1735]
As I recall the way Bill C-54 works, there is a sort of time factor. The provinces are given an opportunity to enact their own regulations, but if they don't do so within a certain number of months or years, then the federal government's rules will come into place. This seems to me to be an area where there is no real need for a federal-provincial disagreement. But I must admit that I have had a bit of a concern all along, as I always do whenever I see the federal government embarking upon a new level of regulation in what would not typically -- quickly, anyway -- be thought of as a sphere of human activity that's within federal legislative jurisdiction.
[ Page 12636 ]
I think that most people probably share the objective of getting better rules in place for privacy protection in the private sector. It may be that that's why there has not been much public discussion about which government should be doing this. I know that this is an issue that has the attention of the ministry. I'm just not sure what the status of the issue is, from the minister's perspective. That is, how has the province responded to Bill C-54? And does the province have a program for dealing with the issue of protection of privacy in the private sector in a way that prevents someone at some point from creating a federal-provincial issue -- whereas I see it that none really should arise?
Hon. A. Petter: I think it boils down to this. As I understand the member's position, we may not be much at odds on this at all -- although I may end up by asking the member a question, to see if I can elicit a response from him.
The federal government's bill does have this provision that purports to extend the reach of the legislation into areas that would normally be thought of as regulated through provincial regulatory authority -- business activity and the like, which would normally be provincially regulated. That has been a matter of concern that has resulted in both myself and the Attorney Generally expressing concern to our counterparts in the federal government.
Having said that, I personally -- and on behalf of the government -- share the concern about intrusions into privacy within the private sector. I don't like the fact that I have to disclose my shopping habits to a grocery store simply to get 5 percent off on the cheese that I buy, for example, so they can track my behaviour. It's a rather tame and benign example of intrusions that we see. At a very personal level, I find that offensive. I think that intrusions into privacy, given the technological advancements that we have, are becoming of heightened concern.
The concern that has been visited upon government quite appropriately needs to be extended to the private sector. That's a challenge. It's a challenge for all of us if we want to do that in a way that does not increase the regulatory burden on business, on the one hand. But I think it's something that business can and will support, on the other hand, because businesses have an interest in ensuring there's adequate privacy. Good businesses, businesses that want to do good practice, have an interest in providing that degree of security. Obviously, in the electronic transactions, they do, because the security of those transactions is in direct relationship to the willingness of people to share their credit card number on the Internet, for example. But I think that generally, businesses have an interest in ensuring that other businesses are not competing against them on the basis of invasions of privacy.
There was a conference that was held provincially some months ago, which we helped to sponsor -- the federal government was a participant -- to consult the private sector. I am nervous and concerned about the fact that the federal government may be moving into this area. I would like to see the province come up with a response to protect privacy in the private sector in a meaningful way, but in a way that also reflects the business lens that this government has talked about and the incessant concerns of the opposition -- well-founded, but incessant concerns -- concerning regulation.
[1740]
So I say to the member by way of question or invitation -- either way -- that if the
member has some views
I think it's a very, very important issue of public policy. We do face a situation in which intrusions on personal privacy are becoming heightened. The member, in the past, has expressed concern about this in the government context. I would hope that he would want to work cooperatively to see what we could do in the private sector in a way that doesn't impede business but in fact supports those businesses that share this concern and doesn't simply rely on the federal government to intrude on provincial jurisdiction to achieve these objectives.
G. Plant: I thank the minister for the invitation. I think it may be an issue where there is some opportunity for all members to have input. I know that some of my colleagues want to return to other areas of the minister's portfolio, so we won't have what I think would be an interesting discussion at much length on the subject now. But let me say this: I think we have to take into account all of what the minister has said about the complications of regulating privacy or dealing with the regulation of privacy in the public sector, as the minister has outlined those issues. I think that there is a need for the province -- all provinces, but British Columbia, since we're sitting here in British Columbia -- to be thoughtful and proactive on this issue, because as I think the minister implied in the end of his remarks, we also need to be mindful of the risk of the issue of intrusion into provincial legislative authority.
I suppose that what I would add to the minister's comments on that subject is simply this: that is a concern which has implications across a whole host of other areas, some of which we may not be able to foresee now. I'm sure the minister agrees with me in saying that. But as I have also said, I don't want that problem to be an obstacle to solving the public policy issues around privacy in the private sector. So if there is an opportunity for members of this assembly to assist government in struggling with those issues, then I welcome that, and we'll see how this unfolds in the weeks and months to come.
I suspect that I haven't said anything that the minister takes strong issue with. He has made the invitation, and I, for one, certainly intend to take him up on it. There is, of course, the legislative committee that is already reviewing the provincial act. That may be a place where something can be said about this -- although I have questions about that. I want to thank the minister's staff for providing help to me on an ongoing basis in relation to the intricacies of the administration of the FOIPPA Act. Those are all the questions I have on that area.
R. Thorpe: I'd like to ask some questions on CCS.
In June of 1996, there was a promise in the throne speech. It was reaffirmed by the Premier in the estimates of 1997; it's been recommended by the Public Accounts Committee and the auditor general. And that is the operation of the Crown Corporations Committee. That committee has yet to meet. Given the minister's earlier comments about openness,
[ Page 12637 ]
enhancing routine disclosure, British Columbians' need to know and to be served well and to save money, could the minister give us his views on why that committee hasn't met? And does he see it meeting in the near future?
[1745]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I mean I try to answer all questions that are put to me, when they fall within my responsibility. But the question of when a legislative committee is called and sits is really beyond my purview, and it's beyond the purview of the secretariat as well. So I think it's a matter the member's going to have to take up through Government House Leaders and the way these things get decided.
R. Thorpe: CCS has been constructively criticized for its apparent lack of accountability, its planning process and its governance processes. Could the minister please advise what the current status is for the strategic planning process on the initiatives within the CCS?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, there is strategic planning work certainly underway within the Crown corporations secretariat. I guess there are two major focuses to that activity. One is to develop plans around certain issues that are common to all Crowns -- issues concerning conflict, appointments and those kinds of things would be examples. The other component of it is to ensure that Crowns are themselves generating strategic plans with respect to their future operations and are keeping those up to date in a timely way, and to ensure that there is a process in which those plans are shared more regularly with government and with the public.
R. Thorpe: Does CCS have a business plan in place for the implementation of these programs and these initiatives, which have been recommended several times by the auditor general? And is the CCS prepared to share that detailed business plan with the members in the House?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm tempted to say that CCS has been so busy trying to get the Crown corporations to work on their business plans that it hasn't had time for one itself. But that, in fact, is not correct. CCS has been working on a business plan. It is not yet finalized, but once it is, I'd be happy to arrange to share it with the member.
R. Thorpe: When do we anticipate that business plan being completed?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I understand it, much work has been done at the staff level. The actual plan itself has yet to be brought forward to a cabinet committee or cabinet for consideration, and there's also the relationship between that plan and the plans of the Crowns to be resolved. But I hope that a releasable document will be available by the end of the summer.
R. Thorpe: Will that plan include how CEOs are evaluated?
[1750]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, the business plan may refer to the process of evaluation, but the evaluation of CEOs is done through a relationship between the CEO and the board to whom they're accountable, based upon the mandate -- the powers that are provided to that board in the legislation -- under the authority of, or with the responsibility residing with, a particular minister. The plan may reference that and help to regularize it in some way, but it won't do more than that, I don't anticipate.
R. Thorpe: Do all Crown corporations of the government report on a regular basis through to CCS?
Hon. A. Petter: No, not all Crown corporations have a relationship with CCS. Fisheries Renewal, for example, doesn't have a relationship with CCS, and I can name a number of others. With respect to those Crown corporations that do have a relationship with CCS and are within the mandate of CCS, their immediate reporting relationship is through the minister to whom they are responsible. But CCS does have a role in terms of oversight and monitoring and providing support to the minister in his or her capacity as exercising responsibility for the Crown.
R. Thorpe: To those Crown corporations that do report to CCS, is that on a monthly or a quarterly basis?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, the member's question doesn't exactly capture the relationship. The reporting relationship of the Crown is, as I say, primarily to the minister. Having said that, there is ongoing dialogue back and forth between the Crowns and CCS and the staff in CCS who are responsible for providing support to ministers with respect to those Crowns and developing government response with respect to those Crown activities. That would take place on an as-needs basis, but on a fairly regular back-and-forth kind of basis.
R. Thorpe: Considering what I was led to believe was the minister's personal philosophy about safeguarding the value of British Columbians' money, when he was talking to my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, and since he's responsible for this area, I'm troubled by that answer. It's sort of an ad hoc approach. I mean, this is the largest corporation in the province of British Columbia, and we're managing it on an ad hoc basis? I have great difficulty with that.
I'm just wondering, perhaps
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the member's preparatory comment, I think, misses the point. The reporting relationship, as I have said, is to the minister concerned. That reporting relationship is presumably a very regular relationship established by the minister and the minister's staff, in terms of the relationship with the board and, indeed, the CEO of the Crown. The CCS's role is to provide support to the minister in terms of that relationship and to develop approaches around issues that are common to Crowns and particular issues that arise from time to time. I am reluctant to get into any particular issue that is better covered by the minister who's responsible, for that very reason.
[1755]
But in general terms, I think part of the problem with respect to the issues around B.C. Ferries, which is common to
[ Page 12638 ]
CCS in its role in support of the minister and to the minister himself and the previous minister, is that information that was in the possession of the senior management of B.C. Ferries was not shared. That information was not shared in a timely way with either the minister or CCS in its support of the minister.
G. Farrell-Collins: The fast ferry fiasco isn't the first time a Crown corporation's found itself in some trouble. In fact, there was a fairly major fiasco around B.C. Hydro some three years ago. It turns out after the report was complete that in fact one of the only people who were ringing alarm bells and trying to keep that project from heading to the rocks was a gentleman from the Crown corporations secretariat. At that time I gave some credit to the individual for doing that, as did the report investigating into it.
I would have thought, given that and given the comments of the minister and the Premier at the time, that there was going to be a greater role for the Crown corporations secretariat in overseeing that and that there was going to be a greater role for this new Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations that was supposed to be overseeing Crown corporations, also.
It appears to me now that neither of those two things was done -- that the Crown corporations secretariat does not have a greater role in overseeing the operations of Crown corporations and acting as a watchdog for the public purse as far as Crown corporations go. We all know that the Crown Corporations Committee of this Legislature has never met, despite repeated promises from the Premier and various ministers of the Crown.
Does the minister believe that there should be a greater role for the Crown corporations secretariat in overseeing the Crown corporations and acting as that watchdog? Or have the teeth -- that job -- been pulled from that watchdog? Or are we going to see greater accountability offered by it?
The Chair: I recognize the minister, noting the hour.
Hon. A. Petter: Right -- okay.
I don't want to get into the specifics of particularly the Hydro situation, given that there are certain matters still before the courts in respect of that. Suffice it to say, I think that the Crown corporations secretariat can play a very useful role and does play a very useful role. The relationship has been one in which the Crown corporations secretariat, however, is providing that support through to the ministers responsible for the Crowns, who are most directly responsible. The goal here is to provide the maximum degree of support and oversight, but not in a way that duplicates or triplicates, if that's a word, the role of other agencies -- the Crown itself and its board, and the minister who is in oversight of the Crown.
There is now the Crown Corporations Committee of cabinet, which is of fairly recent vintage in terms of being established. It was one of the things I was asked to do when I became minister a year ago. That committee is starting to function on a more regular basis and, I think, will become more effective in terms of being able to provide some oversight, particularly with respect to issues that are generic to Crowns and to reviewing some of the strategic plans of Crowns as they are brought forward.
I think the Crown corporations secretariat deserves a lot of credit for the support it provides to ministers and, increasingly, for the support that it is starting to provide to this new Crown Corporations Committee of cabinet in its role.
R. Thorpe: We're shortly going to run out of time. I would just like to say that the minister should take the time to read the auditor general's report No. 1, 1998-99. And he should take the time to read "Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan." This is the second report. The 1996 report came up with lots of deficiencies. The follow-up audit is showing deficiency after deficiency after deficiency. You can't keep handing it back and forth -- the minister, the CCS, Treasury Board.
British Columbians want some results, and they want some results now. Surely the minister should commit to this House to make the recommendations in the auditor general's report and the enhancing accountability for performance report. CCS is going to demand that those things be done so that British Columbians have confidence in the numbers that they're seeing, albeit six and seven months after the fact -- that they're real and that they're getting some value for their money.
[1800]
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, CCS and the Crown Corporations Committee are working on a number of the issues that have arisen from the auditor general's report in respect of conflicts, ethics, governance and those kinds of issues. I'm just pointing out that we have a system in which ministers bear responsibility for certain Crowns, and we want to make sure that the work that's done by CCS and by the Crown Corporations Committee is consistent with that and that the responsibility continues to pertain to ministers. At the same time, work is being undertaken by the Crown Corporations Committee with the support of CCS, and progress is being made, based upon the recommendations that the member refers to, in a number of these key areas in a way that I think meets the objectives and concerns that were referenced by the auditor general.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise, in vote 12, on the $1.1 million under STOB 20, what those consultants are going to do for British Columbians for $1.1 million?
Hon. A. Petter: Without getting into detail, I think that in general terms,
consultants will be working on some of the issues that the member has referenced in
respect of governance and the like that are raised by the auditor general's report, and
also on certain issues that pertain to particular Crowns -- Ferries being one obvious
example -- to provide guidance and support on the issues that
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: I can provide the member with something in writing that will give him some clarification on that.
Vote 11 approved.
Vote 12: Crown corporations secretariat, $1,000 -- approved.
Vote 13: Information, Science and Technology Agency, $37,600,000 -- approved.
[ Page 12639 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call private members' statements.
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME: A COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE TRAGEDY
L. Reid: This evening I intend to canvass the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, which is a completely preventable tragedy. Fetal alcohol syndrome is brain damage as a result of prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcohol-exposed babies often suffer permanent, long-term damage. Fetal alcohol syndrome is characterized as a cluster of birth defects as a result of exposing babies to alcohol during pregnancy. There is some discussion that fetal alcohol syndrome accounts for 10 percent of all mentally handicapped, mentally challenged, children today.
[1805]
The cost to the little person is enormous. The cost to society, in dollars alone, is well in excess of $2 million per child over that child's lifetime. The cost to their families, their siblings, their friends and their teachers is often equally devastating. The brain injury can be different, depending on the time frame of alcohol consumption. The group of symptoms includes everything from behaviour to poor impulse control, poor judgment, a very poor understanding of cause and effect, atrocious reasoning abilities and severely limited notions of consequence.
All of those can indeed be paired with organic difficulties, as well, in terms of physical impairment where the child looks dramatically different from his or her peers. These are neurologically impaired young people who often have difficult times in schools, in society, in relationships and in families. All of this anguish in their lives is completely preventable.
I believe, as a teacher, that we do have an obligation to look out for the next generation. I touched on some of the behaviours. The group of symptoms caused by FAS includes recognizable physical and facial characteristics. For a new term, partial FAS -- which was formerly known as fetal alcohol effect -- behaviours are the only indicators of damage. Those children do not physically appear different, but their behaviour and their ability to interact effectively in relationships in life are often compromised.
One of the documents that I want to reference today is called "The First Years Last Forever." Indeed I concur: the first years do last forever. This is a document that has been put out by the Canadian Institute of Child Health, and it's sponsored by Smith-Kline Beacham and Maclean Hunter Publishing. I will quote:
"At birth, the infant's brain has 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons. These neurons will grow and connect with other neurons in systems that control various functions like seeing, hearing, moving and expressing emotion. These systems, activated by repeated experiences, provide the foundation for the brain's organization and functioning throughout life. The absence of appropriate activation results in the lack of development or the disappearance of these connections."
When babies in the womb are exposed to alcohol, all of those growth experiences are compromised. These early experiences help to determine brain structure, thus shaping the way people learn, think and behave for the rest of their lives.
Many women today with untreated mental illnesses expose themselves and their babies to alcohol and drugs. Indeed whether or not we have a reasonable mental wellness system in this province is vital to whether or not we continue to have babies born suffering very, very serious issues for the rest of their lives. That's the concern that I bring to this Legislature today.
I will say that a pregnancy outreach program is required, but one that is on a much
broader scale. I have visited Crabtree Corner. I understand the work that goes on in terms
of social workers interacting directly with moms and babies. The Sheaway program -- again
a fine program
Based on current statistics, it's suggested that approximately two babies are born each week with FAS and ten babies are born with fetal alcohol effect each week in British Columbia. That's ten children who begin their lives each week in this province who are sincerely compromised before they've had a chance to enjoy the things that make childhood fun and interesting and delightful. And I'll quote from the Kelowna Courier of May 10. "It's no coincidence that Fetal Alcohol Awareness Week starts on Mother's Day. We know of no safe amount of alcohol for a pregnant woman and her fetus." And this is a child psychiatrist: "It's a risk factor that can be completely avoided." I touched earlier on the fact that it costs approximately $2 million to support an FAS child throughout their lifetime. Certainly one of the aspects of this article talks about the judicial system: these children with an inappropriate notion of consequence often have extreme difficulty as they interact in society.
[1810]
The article suggests that FAS leads to a host of physical and mental problems. At the mild end, there may be lower IQ, attention deficit disorder and hearing and visual problems. Severe FAS can result in more than 20 kinds of disabilities, only a few of which are severe loss of IQ, heart defects, immune system malfunction, epilepsy, cerebral palsy and heart failure. FAS sufferers also face a number of other physical problems, such as small body size, skeletal deformities and facial abnormalities -- something that no one in their right mind would wish to see happen to any particular child. So again, if I can make a plea today for individuals receiving supports in the system, that is absolutely my goal, because no one wishes this upon their child. I don't believe that that would ever be the case.
I want to reference some research that's been going on at the University of Washington -- a fetal alcohol syndrome study by Dr. Sterling Clarren. His notion is basically that typically a term identifies a disorder as relating to only the child. In this case, the term fetal alcohol syndrome is problem-
[ Page 12640 ]
atic, since most birth defect syndromes identify one affected individual as the patient, while in this case both the mother and child are the patient. The term is actually more immediately applicable to the mother for primary prevention than to the child for prevention of secondary disabilities. I'll conclude momentarily.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, member. I think we missed our green light here for the two-minute signal, but I thank you for your cooperation in that.
I recognize in reply the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine.
B. Goodacre: Let me start by thanking the member for Richmond East for bringing this matter to the floor of this Legislature. This is the second time I've participated in a discussion on fetal alcohol syndrome in private members' statements. It's actually a pleasure to report that in the time since I last spoke on this issue, the community of Burns Lake in my riding has introduced programs at the College of New Caledonia for working with adults with FAS. I had an opportunity to visit that program recently.
One of the interesting aspects of it was that we had young adults in that program who, for whatever reason, hadn't been aware that that was the affliction they had. They knew they had all of the symptoms that were mentioned by the previous speaker, and yet it was upon assessment of their disability that they then sought help. Until quite recently, there wasn't much help for people with this affliction. But this program that they've started in the College of New Caledonia in Burns Lake, for example, has the feature that the people who are participating in it actually are identified as FAS-afflicted. It's almost like a 12-step type of program. It seems to have had a wonderful therapeutic effect, if you would, for these young people to -- and these are young people, mainly in their twenties and early thirties -- be identified and to acknowledge that that is what is wrong with them; to work in a group with other people with a similar disability and a fine teacher; to work around their disability and learn ways to cope with what's happened to them; and to better understand their affliction, leading them to those kinds of improvements.
Another wonderful program happening in Burns Lake is a camp that's put on by a young foster mother who's got between four and seven FAS children in her care at any given time. She has a property outside of Burns Lake, near Fran�ois Lake, where last year she had her first FAS camp in the summertime. FAS families from as far away as 300 kilometres came -- right from Quesnel, and I think the person furthest away was from the Robson Valley area. They had several families there for a couple of weeks, working with each other and sharing their experiences and learning skills on how to work with children who are afflicted with FAS.
[1815]
My wife and I had an opportunity to meet this woman in her home and spend the better
part of a day with her. It's an incredible experience to see a very capable young woman --
well, young in respect to how old some of us are
Focusing on my riding again, in the town of Smithers, where I live, I was previously
involved with our town council. We had a family court committee in which the local judge,
a woman by the name of
I see that my time is up, and I've got lots more to say -- but that's okay.
L. Reid: I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, for his remarks, because I know he thinks deeply about these issues as well.
In terms of the study I was citing, it's from the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Diagnostic and
Prevention Network from the state of Washington and through the University of Washington.
If I may quote just one or two items: "General public awareness campaigns appear to
affect the behaviour of women who drink occasionally -- who are at a relatively low risk
-- and so they drink very little or nothing at all. While recent Centers for Disease
Control data find that high-risk drinking has actually doubled in the last five to ten
years
My interest in sharing this with you is to talk about the 80 mothers that they interviewed who were in fact FAS patients. This is the first study that has described this group. Data from 1,200 questions has been collected from each interview. As a group, the women were found to be extremely fragile. Pertinent findings included: 80 percent had major mental illnesses; 100 percent had been seriously sexually, physically or emotionally abused; 80 percent lived with men who did not wish them to stop drinking; and 60 percent had phobias. The most common was agoraphobia, so they were reluctant to leave home and get help. A pattern emerges of a patient dealing with mental health issues, with alcohol as a partial treatment and babies as a way to access social service.
So it's a complex issue. It's one that requires, I think, enormous commitment on behalf of all those concerned so that indeed we can arrive at a solution that makes perfect sense.
I want to conclude my remarks by referencing the provincial partnership that is, in fact, just one year old this year. It's called the interprovincial fetal alcohol syndrome partnership and includes Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It began in February of 1998 at a meeting of the ministers of social services and health. The partnership exists to prevent FAS and to assist in coordinated services for care and support for individuals and caregivers already affected. Strategies to meet those needs must be developed within the broad context of disabilities.
On a formal basis, each province took responsibility for a lead project, to be shared with the other provinces. Saskatchewan is working on a training package, Manitoba's is on remote diagnosis of FAS via telemedicine links, and Alberta's is on clinical practice guidelines for physicians. It says that the Stop FAS program in Manitoba has the potential for collaboration among the other provinces.
[ Page 12641 ]
I would simply be interested to see if British Columbia can indeed participate, because British Columbia has some very superior folks working on this very complex area. It was my pleasure to meet with the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents. Indeed, I would commend to all members of this Legislature their publication "FAS: A Guide for Daily Living; Parenting Children Affected by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome." It is a very well done document.
[1820]
I would also make special tribute to the Cowichan Valley FAS Action Team -- collective action for collective solutions. They too recognize that this must be a package of endeavours if we are to arrive at a society that values all members and doesn't wish to compromise any young person as they begin their life. Again, the provincial partnership is in place. I await British Columbia's involvement.
MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS
G. Janssen: It is with a great amount of pride that I stand up and talk again about one of my favourite activities and sports associations, and about motorcycle awareness in British Columbia. As you are aware, on May 13 we held our annual MLA motorcycle awareness ride here at the Legislature. Although it was an awkward time for most members to participate, I must say that we had a good time. Members who were able to attend did receive some input from the motorcycling community on their concerns.
I come from a motorcycling family. I myself ride. My wife has a licence, although she doesn't ride that much; she prefers her horse these days. My son and my daughter both have licences and motorcycles. Along with the other 242,000 class 6 licence holders in the province, we enjoy the sport of motorcycling.
It has become more than a sport; it has become a way of transportation. In our very
mild climate it is possible to ride a motorcycle virtually year-round, particularly in the
lower mainland areas and the lower part of Vancouver Island. Certainly as you look around
the legislative buildings where, when I was first elected some 11 years ago, you saw not
one motorcycle, you now see four or five. Even some of the press gallery comes here
Yet there are only 57,000 licensed motorcycles in British Columbia. That represents about a fifth of the people who actually have class 6 licences. I'd like to spend part of my speech on how that is.
Along with the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, who represent groups such as the B.C. Motorcycle Safety Association, Gold Wing riders, the BMW clubs and so forth in this province, we have tried to put forward safety first and foremost. The motorcycle community pioneered the new licensing programs that car drivers now enjoy. For a number of years we had the interim licensing program. With the help of government and the motor vehicle branch, we have been able to convince them that people should not attain a licence unless they do so on at least a 200-cc machine.
We are still advocating better training courses. Certainly the B.C. Safety Council runs an excellent program. It provides the motorcycles, and you virtually walk in and attain your licence after you take some four-to-five-week course.
Motorcyclists now are required to ride with their lights on so that car drivers are
more aware. In conjunction with ICBC, the British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists and
motorcycle dealers -- with a "safety first" program of advertising on
television, at bus stops, on buses and in other forms of media -- we have been able to
promote safe motorcycle riding. We have been able to convince
In Vancouver, if you can just imagine -- for those of us that don't come from the big city -- you can park your motorcycle free of charge on the diagonal corner at the end of the parking spaces. So you have your regular parking spaces throughout, down the street, and at the corner there's that diagonal piece. You can, with the help of Vancouver city council, now park your bike there free of charge in most locations -- making it more acceptable, making it easier and making it more attractive to enjoy motorcycling in British Columbia.
[1825]
Despite all those efforts -- and I remind members that this is mid-May -- four motorcyclists have lost their lives in British Columbia this year already. There have been many other accidents. Fellow motorists must become more aware that motorcycles are part of the traffic pattern. They have a right to drive down the road. Too often we see motorcycles involved in accidents -- 85 percent of them caused by other motor vehicles, mainly cars. Too often we hear, after the accident, the car driver getting out and saying: "I didn't even see him. I didn't see the motorcyclist. I'm so sorry."
We have to inflict on the public -- yes, I used the word "inflict" -- the fact that motorcyclists have a right to the road, that motorcyclists and motorcycles are part of the traffic pattern and do have a right to be there.
We have, in our plan at the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, an attempt not only to make the public more aware but to make motorcyclists more acceptable in this province -- to ensure that when we have a message, that message is heard. It doesn't need to be through the type of stereotyping that has taken place in some media outlets and some movies and television -- that motorcyclists are somehow involved in another lifestyle that is not part of the general society. Motorcyclists come from all walks of life, and we are part of the travelling public. We do have a right to the road, and we do want to ensure that the rules of the road are even stricter than they are now, so that we become even more aware of how motorcyclists travel in the traffic lanes, travel with the public.
I want to speak shortly afterwards about the concerns that we have in motorcycling:
noisy mufflers, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard has alluded to in the past, and the
fact that motorcycles do not have personalized plates -- or vanity plates, as we call them
The Speaker: Member, we see that the red light is on.
In reply, I recognize the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: The member for Alberni and myself have gone through this process for quite a long time. It's one of the things that will please the Speaker -- that there's no confrontation in what we're going to be speaking on. We're all in agreement with each other on this issue -- so much agreement, as a matter of fact, that many of the items that I wrote down here, the member has already covered. We've been
[ Page 12642 ]
going through this, so we pretty well know what each other is going to say.
I have three areas that I do want to comment on. Some of the areas have been covered already, but certainly one of them is the awareness of safety on the road related to motorcyclists. I might add -- because I have had limited experience on motorcycles but a fair amount of experience on bicycles -- that much of what we say about one also applies to the other. So maybe I'll extend the statement for "motorcycle awareness" to "cycle awareness."
Certainly the size and the visibility -- that is, visibility from the viewpoint of the automobile user and of trucks and other vehicles on the road compared to the motorcycle -- leave the motorcyclist in a very vulnerable position. If he's in the blind spot of a car or behind a car and he changes positions, the driver often doesn't notice that happening with a motorcycle, whereas he would notice it occurring if it had been a vehicle behind him. Because of the size of the motorcyclist and the motorcycle that he's on, this does create that problem in awareness.
I think there has to be more training on the part of drivers to realize that once they
see a motorcyclist in their rearview mirror, they sort of keep track
Another, of course, happens when drivers are parked in their car and they open their car door as a bicyclist or a motorcyclist is passing by, and that has dire consequences as well. So the idea of awareness, I think, on the part of the automobile driver is extremely important, and it's so easy for the driver to forget that he's doing that.
[1830]
That brings on the other side as well. What we have to do is make sure that the motorcyclist is also basically driving defensively. They have to be aware that they are less visible and they are more vulnerable. Therefore they also have to be prepared to expect that driver ahead of them to do something crazy that puts them in peril. It puts them in a defensive position that would help them considerably.
The member made mention of the biker's image. This is something where a few have given the whole industry -- riders and what not -- a bad image, and that's unfortunate, because most of them are responsible drivers who are enjoying their vehicle and possibly not having the best enjoyment out of it because of the image that some people have of them.
I'll skip on to a couple of other topics here. I had a lot more to say. There must be
some fairness and flexibility in the treatment of motorcycle users. Certainly the use of
HOV lanes has been an improvement for them. Parking in cities, as mentioned, is also an
important issue, as is insurance coverage. Those three items have
The motorcycle is also an alternative to the car. I think we have to recognize that when you have 240,000 who have a class 6 licence, there are a number of people in the province that do enjoy that, both as a means of transportation and as a sport and as a recreational vehicle. Certainly we want to encourage that, because motorcycles are smaller, they take less space on the road, their fuel-economy compared to an automobile is considerably better -- therefore their exhaust fumes and so forth are lower -- and motorcycles, of course, have the advantage of an off-road use. So there are a lot of advantages for it. We need to keep use of motorcycles viable for both a means of transportation and a means of recreation. In order to do that, we need to keep their use affordable.
G. Janssen: I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks and for his support for the motorcycle community in years gone by -- and in the future, I hope, as well.
We would also like to address the question of interchangeability of motorcycle plates. In other words, you should be able to buy one motorcycle plate for the largest motorcycle that you own and put it down to a dirt bike, perhaps, if you own one, or a smaller bike that you use for town traffic.
The question of safety gear. Right now it's possible in British Columbia to drive in a bathing suit, wearing a helmet and shoes. Of course that is a very unsafe practice, and we believe that something could be done to enforce some kind of clothing attire to make it safer for the driver. We would also like to discuss a power-to-weight ratio in licensing. Right now it's possible for a 16-year-old, having a new motorcycle licence, to go out and buy a motorcycle that is -- pardon the expression -- known in the motorcycle community as a crotch rocket that will go from zero to 100 kilometres an hour and back to a dead stop in eight seconds. You can buy this right off the shelf, as they say, and it is a very dangerous piece of equipment, and it requires some great skill and knowledge in its operation.
The question of insurance. A large motorcycle, such as a Harley-Davidson, costs more to insure on a yearly basis -- with the same coverage -- than a Jaguar. It is absolutely unacceptable that those insurance rates remain where they are.
The Vancouver toy run -- just to speak of some of the contributions that have been done by the motorcycle community -- raised $12,000 in cash and 15,000 toys in this last year. In Port Alberni we had a similar event that raised $7,000. It is the fourteenth year that we've held that toy run in Port Alberni. They're held in Nanaimo, Victoria and all around British Columbia. Other events, such as pigs and fins, which are fish and pig roasts, are held to raise money mainly for charity -- or safety events. The member for Comox Valley will remember a motorcycle donated to the women's centre for the transition house there. That was auctioned off. Even though not enough money was raised to cover the costs of the bike, that bike was fully donated by the motorcycle community, and we want to thank them.
[1835]
I would just like to recognize the members of the Legislature that do ride motorcycles: the members for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, Victoria-Hillside, Prince George-Omineca and Vancouver-Kingsway -- of course, the Premier. We have done our part to make motorcycling safe and to make motorcycling part of the community. I ask now that car drivers do their part and recognize our rights on the road and our right to safety while riding in British Columbia.
[ Page 12643 ]
THE FLOOD OF '48
B. Penner: We all know that this year there's been unprecedented concern about snowpack levels throughout British Columbia. I think it's appropriate, therefore, to look back and remember the most disastrous flooding the province has ever seen. That is the flooding that occurred in the spring of 1948. Before proceeding, though, I'd like to acknowledge the help of the Chilliwack Museum and Archives, as well as a report prepared last year by Carol Baird in recognition of the fiftieth anniversary of the flood of 1948. Her report is entitled "Sandbags and Rubber Boots" and provides informative reading for those who seek to learn a little bit more about the flood of 1948.
In the spring of 1948 unusually cool temperatures prevailed through March, April and early May, with the result that the melting of the snowpack which had accumulated the previous winter was delayed. Several days of hot weather and rains over the holiday weekend in late May, however, hastened the thawing process. Rivers and streams quickly swelled with the spring runoff, reaching heights surpassed only by those measured in 1894, which remains today the high-level mark for the Fraser River. By the time the flood waters receded a month later, 16,000 people had been evacuated, 2,300 homes had been damaged or destroyed and 70,000 acres of farmland had been inundated. Total damage stood at $20 million.
The first flooding took place on May 24 in the interior town of Cache Creek. The first serious damage, however, occurred the following day when Mark Creek tore through its banks and flowed down the streets of Kimberley in the East Kootenays, affecting roads, water and sewage systems, homes and businesses. The scene was repeated several hours later when the Kettle River flooded the main street of Grand Forks. Over the next several weeks, transportation links all over the province were severed as flood waters washed out rail lines, roads and bridges and disrupted ferry service. Approximately 15,000 acres were flooded near Creston as dikes along the Kootenay River gave way. Residents of Trail, however, managed to ward off the rising waters of the Columbia River and save their own town from serious flooding.
The Similkameen and Tulameen rivers wreaked havoc on Okanagan roads and bridges, and a prolonged rise of water in Okanagan Lake caused considerable damage to nearby communities. The most destruction, however, occurred in the Fraser Valley. At the height of the flood, one-tenth of its total area -- 50,000 acres -- stood under water. Many communities along the lower Fraser River experienced flooding as dikes broke at Agassiz, Chilliwack, Nicomen Island, Glen Valley and Matsqui. Thousands of residents were forced to leave their homes, and livestock were evacuated to higher ground. The river reached its maximum height of 24.73 feet at the Mission gauge on June 10, measuring about five feet above the high-water danger level.
When news of the disaster spread, it triggered an incredible outpouring of support for flood victims by ordinary citizens, governments and corporations from all over Canada and many parts of the United States. When the Canadian army took over direction of flood operations on June 1, it received assistance from the navy and air force and over 30,000 civilian volunteers. Together they worked tirelessly reinforcing dikes, evacuating people and livestock, and salvaging food and possessions. The Red Cross provided invaluable service by supplying food, shelter and medical care to dike workers and evacuees. Individuals and businesses donated the use of their trucks, steam shovels and bulldozers. The provincial government, army and municipal road engineers worked quickly to reopen highway routes wherever possible.
British Columbia's Premier, Byron Johnson, viewed the devastation firsthand, declared a state of emergency and immediately set up committees to deal with relief and rehabilitation efforts. A number of other agencies got involved, including the predecessor to Air Canada -- then TransCanada Airlines -- and Canadian Pacific Airlines, now known as Canadian Airlines International, to provide people with emergency transportation. As well, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways laboured to repair their damaged railway systems in the Fraser Valley.
[1840]
In addition to generously giving their time, many people also made contributions to the B.C. flood emergency fund, which grew to over $2 million, thanks also in part to donations from industrial firms and large corporations in eastern Canada.
Fifty-one years have now passed since the people of British Columbia battled the flood of 1948, but its memory lives on in photographs, newspaper accounts and personal recollections. In fact, a woman who serves on Chilliwack district council, Dorothy Kostrzewa, has told me that she remembers the flood bringing the water levels up to just below the second floor of her house when she was a child. In order to feed themselves, her brother used to dive under the water in the back yard and come up with various vegetables from their submerged garden, believe it or not, including carrots and potatoes. Those were difficult days indeed, but people did their best. The community really rallied around and limited the damage, which could have been much worse.
Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is almost up. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.
W. Hartley: Unlike the hon. member for Chilliwack, of course, I was actually there in 1948 -- but just barely. It is a very interesting account that the member brings to the chamber, and very useful, I'm sure, for looking at perhaps how we cope with today's situation compared to 1948. Like the member for Chilliwack, I live in an area that has concerns about floods -- in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, along the Fraser River. Of course, as this cool weather continues, the concern grows. We all hope for a gradual melt into the month of June. We hope for that, but in the meantime, of course, we have to plan for a potential flood should a rapid melt occur. We are doing that in our communities. I'm sure they're working very hard in Chilliwack, and they're also working very hard in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows to prepare for that possibility. I know the local fire chief and the emergency people are working with the community to ensure that everyone has an evacuation plan and a response plan in mind should that be necessary. Farmers, of course, are looking at limited insurance policies to make sure that they can limit their damage.
Along the Fraser River, the Katzie Indian band has a long area of riverfront that is
not protected, so they're having to look at the possibility of evacuation. The province
can arrange to help with that. The Alouette River basin and the Kanaka Creek areas of
Maple Ridge
[ Page 12644 ]
floodplain areas. They will certainly have to become prepared, as well as houseboats on the rivers themselves.
There's a lot of work being done. Of course, any community along any river has to start
to do this kind of work and should be well into it by now. I know that I don't have much
time to get into it, but the province has already funded some 71 emergency flood
mitigation projects, which has come up to nearly $7 million. That's based on risk of
flooding as well as ability to get that work done early, before the summer appears. Flood
response planning central coordination groups are forming emergency programs, working with
the various ministries. Just in the lower mainland alone, there are some 29 projects --
that are close to $3.5 million -- already in place. So working with local government,
making sure that sandbags are available and that any major flood threat is being taken
care of to the best of our ability
All we can do is hope for the best and make sure that our families are protected, make sure that we all have a family plan in place. I talked about the dangers of furnaces in houses. When basements flood, the furnaces lift and gas lines get broken. I think that's a major concern that people should have and should prepare for. Just have a good family action plan.
I think my time's about up. I look forward to the member for Chilliwack's response.
[1845]
B. Penner: The member's comments are well taken. In fact, everybody has a responsibility to come up with their own plan, because the government can only do so much.
But there are some things the government can do. About ten days ago I was conducting a tour of some of the dikes on the north side of the Fraser River. I learned that, in fact, since 1991 there has been no program of dike construction in British Columbia. I think that's a matter of concern.
It wasn't until the flood of 1894 that any systematic program was undertaken to construct dikes in the Fraser Valley. A number of dikes were built, and they were of relatively good quality. It served our region of the province well. But we took them for granted, and by 1948 many of those dikes were in disrepair. Trees were allowed to grow along the dikes. They hadn't been maintained. Problems arose when the river rose in 1948.
Today I see some of the same things, where trees are again being allowed to grow along the shores of the dikes. I wonder whether the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will permit people to take the action necessary to preserve the integrity of the diking system, because these trees pose an obvious threat. As the currents get larger and undercut the dikes, the trees could fall into the river and, with their root systems, pull out large sections of material that comprises the dike itself.
Before concluding, I'd like to provide an update about what's happening today. I was just searching the Internet, and I'll provide members with the following update from the River Forecast Centre spring runoff report, dated today. The report indicates that the delayed melt that we've experienced this spring has resulted in snowpacks in the southern half of the province being significantly deeper than at this time during the last high-snow year of 1997. The snowpack in the upper Fraser is over 10 percent greater than it was at this time in 1997, while in the middle and lower Fraser basins it is in the range of 60 percent more than it was two years ago. The increase in percent of normal over the amount we would normally see is because the snow simply has not been melting the way it should be for this time of year.
The report goes on to note that the cool weather we've experienced has increased the risk that melting may be rapid when it occurs, as it becomes more likely that summer-like conditions will develop. However, the river forecast centre models indicate that extreme weather patterns would still be necessary to cause a flood in the lower mainland as great as that which occurred in 1948.
I know that communities throughout the province are working hard to limit the risk of flooding, and I think great steps have been made in the last month or two. However, people still need to be vigilant. Ultimately, there is a greater power at play here. If that greater power decides it's going to flood, then we're all going to have to work together very hard indeed.
CANADA -- A SOCIETY FOR ALL AGES
E. Walsh: I am honoured and I am pleased to speak today on a celebration that we are all going to be actually taking part in this year, for 1999. It's one that I hope will continue on throughout all of our lifetimes and throughout all of the years and not just this year of 1999.
This year, in 1999, throughout Canada, Canadians will be focusing on
[1850]
This theme also was developed by representatives of governments in consultation with seniors organizations throughout Canada. All levels of government recognize that seniors play a very important and very beneficial role in Canadian society. Seniors are in fact a very diverse population, and they have a variety of lifestyles, resources and also needs. In 1998 the population of people in British Columbia aged 65 or older was approximately 515,000. This represents almost 13 percent of the total population of British Columbia, or just slightly under.
By the year 2021 the population of seniors will be
I just want to talk about some of the myths, some of the stereotyping that has been done in the past with seniors and some of the misconceptions that are out there about seniors. Some of those stereotypes portray seniors as being dependent or inactive or frail. Well, hon. Speaker, I know -- and I think
[ Page 12645 ]
we all know -- that this is false. Contrary to that stereotyping and contrary to those myths, seniors today are much healthier, and they live much more vigorous lifestyles. And I'm not sure what the card is on the opposite side that the opposite member is showing me, but I'd like to see it -- maybe a little bit later.
Hon. Speaker, they have in fact increased vitality and a tremendous quality of life today. In fact, close to 94 percent of B.C. seniors live in their own homes in British Columbia. Also, did you know that by using home care or some of the services that are available to seniors, this in fact helps seniors stay in their own homes? And they are staying in their homes, I might add, a little bit longer.
Sometimes the contributions of seniors are not in fact recognized and not in fact
noted. Many times they're overlooked. I might ask people in the chambers here, people that
work in the legislative buildings here: when was the last time that any one of us said
thank you to a senior? I think that when we think about that and think when we said it
last time
When we talk about getting the understanding out and talk about who we can have there to better understand those needs and appreciate this very important contribution of seniors, who better to do that to help us understand but seniors themselves? Their knowledge, their skills, their vision, their experience -- they all demonstrate to each and every one of us that that's what they have to offer to our families, to their families and to our communities as a whole. They share their life experiences, and they share their insight with their grandchildren. They share their life experiences and their insight with other family members: daughters, sons, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law.
They talk about their talents; they talk about their energies. We see their energies in local projects. They work as volunteers in the communities, they act as caregivers, and they contribute to communities in thousands of ways -- not just in volunteer work but also in perhaps helping seniors who would otherwise be isolated in their own homes. And there are 23 percent of seniors who contribute some time each week to unpaid volunteer work in our communities, here in our province.
[1855]
Speaking of contributions, hon. Speaker, did you know that seniors are the largest per-capita donors to charity? They are also great shoppers. They buy clothes, they buy toys, they buy cars -- lots of products -- and they also buy lots of services. I might add that in purchasing these services and products, they are also becoming more concerned with the quality and usability of these products, because many of them do look for functional use.
Hon. Speaker, I see that my light is red, so I'll talk about age being an attitude a little bit later.
K. Whittred: I would like to thank the member for Kootenay for her very, very insightful words about the contribution of seniors. Seniors, in fact, have made an incredible gift to those of us who perhaps have not quite reached senior status. I notice my colleague very proudly waving his seniors card around. Some of us aren't quite there yet, I want to confess.
Today's generation of seniors are the people who probably matured at some time in their lives during the Depression and further matured, or perhaps even fought, in World War II, and I think that those two events had great impact upon their lives. As a result, we have a generation of seniors who were very, very concerned about thrift and making the most out of resources -- and also, from World War II, an event which was a major shaping of their lives about peace. I think that for those of us who have come afterwards, those two contributions are things that we can thank them for: their thrift and their diligence in terms of developing the economy which we now enjoy -- and I'm speaking of my parents' generation -- and the peace that the world enjoys -- at least in terms of no great international conflicts.
I would like to join with the member for Kootenay in celebrating the longevity that seniors enjoy. I would like to add to her remarks in terms of celebrating culture in Canada, and I'm so pleased that this celebration is national. We do enjoy a multicultural society, and something I've learned in my experiences is that we have much that we can learn from new cultures in the way that they respect and include their elders in their life's activities.
I agree with the member about the services of seniors in volunteering. I know that in my own community, seniors are very active in volunteering for community policing activities, Meals on Wheels and visiting with other seniors who perhaps are more senior and a little bit infirm -- and enjoying the benefits of being a grandparent. You can do that without even having to officially be a senior. I know that the member for Kootenay has recently come to enjoy that experience, so I welcome her to the clan of grandmothers. Once we are grandparents, we start to learn about how we can span the generations and mentor a new generation of children.
I conclude by applauding the member for Kootenay for her remarks and joining in the celebration.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, member.
With concluding remarks, the member for Kootenay.
E. Walsh: I'd like to thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for responding to this very important celebration. I'd also like to thank her for her very insightful views and words and for mentioning my grandchild. Yes, that was a very proud moment of my life. I too am very proud of the high quality of care that seniors have with the government today and of the priority that most seniors have in British Columbia now so that they can in fact continue to live a healthy and a productive life here in this province.
[1900]
I know the time is going to be a little bit short, so I just want to remind all British Columbians about a celebration that is going to be happening this year in my riding of Kootenay. We will be hosting the B.C. Senior Games in the Elk Valley. These will be hosted from August 25 to 28. The theme this year will also include International Year of Older Persons. The ages of seniors who will be enjoying these games will range from 55 to 90-plus. You can see that there is quite a wide range of people, so I would encourage as many people as possible to put their names forward and come out and compete. It's going to be great fun.
We will have many senior athletes participating. There are 20 events for anybody out there who is looking forward to something that they can do this summer. They include athletics, badminton, bridge, cycling, darts, slow pitch, tennis,
[ Page 12646 ]
floor curling, swimming, cribbage, carpet bowling, five-pin bowling, golf, horseshoes and table tennis -- and the host community has yet to choose another five events. So if any of those are to your liking, please come out and compete. You never know; you might win.
The school children of the Elk Valley have entered contests. One lucky student will have their winning poster design formatted into a Senior Games T-shirt. One will have their winning song become the official Elk Valley community song for the 1999 games. The theme of this year's games in the Elk Valley is "Share the Spirit." As I've said, along with the theme International Year of Older Persons, this truly is a society for all ages.
I would encourage everyone to join us in the Elk Valley in August. As I've said, it's going to be an exciting time. While you are there, I would also encourage all the members and anyone who is out there who would like to come to the Elk Valley -- it's beautiful -- to take in the sights and take in the games. The people there are absolutely wonderful. You know what? It is ours.
The Speaker: I thank all the members for their thoughtful statements.
Hon. D. Streifel: I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to the members for their thoughtful statements. With that, I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Thursday.
Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; B. Goodacre in the chair.
The committee met at 2:42 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
On vote 38: ministry operations, $1,554,005,000.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me begin the estimates of this ministry by introducing my staff that are with me today. To my right is my deputy minister, Dr. Sharon Manson Singer. Behind me is Chris Haynes, who's the ADM of the field services and program operations division; and to his right is Andrew Wharton, who's the ADM of the policy and research division. I'd also like to begin the estimates by acknowledging the rest of the staff in the ministry, because they're very dedicated and hard-working people who provide excellent services to British Columbians in every part of the province.
It's my pleasure today to outline for you the budget for the Ministry of Human Resources for the fiscal year 1999-2000. Once again, our budget target is down. It's $1.554 billion, which is $630,000 less than last year's budget. This is the fourth consecutive drop in our budget, but I need to point out that it's not falling because we've slashed services. Rather, it's the result of our success in helping people move from welfare to work. In fact, we've been able to modestly enhance services last year, and we expect to do the same in this fiscal year.
The mandate of the Ministry of Human Resources is twofold: first, to support people in need, and second, to help people move as quickly and effectively as possible from welfare into a job and independence. This ministry is also responsible for cooperatives and the volunteer and community services sector. This is a vital link with the community, which in turn is key to resolving the human and social problems, especially the problems of joblessness, poverty and alienation.
This government is very concerned about poverty. The Ministry of Human Resources is just one of many ministries working to prevent and reduce poverty. Other ministries have numerous other initiatives: from settling land claims to the Healthy Kids dental van; from access to good education and health care to school meal programs; from pay equity across the public sector and public service to encouraging young women to study math, science and career development at a young age; from early intervention programs for children at risk to the provision of social housing -- one of only three remaining provinces who do so. All of those things contribute to the overall goal of preventing and reducing poverty.
I would offer that dealing with poverty is a responsibility we all share and one that requires a cross-government approach, as well as an across the spectrum of the province approach. In the context of the cross-government approach, the Ministry of Human Resources plays a central, and probably the most visible, role in dealing with poverty. We provide a number of income supports, as well as key links to the community on poverty and other social issues. This ministry provides services to British Columbians in communities across the province through 137 district offices. We also work extensively with the third sector -- volunteers and non-profit agencies -- as well as with the cooperative sector.
[1445]
There's no question that poverty is a very serious and a growing problem in this country. Poverty, of course, is a question of income distribution, and Canada has not done well on that score in recent decades. Despite the promises of right-wing economists and politicians, trickle-down economic policies have only nourished the upper levels of our society. The income gap, I am sorry to say, is increasing. Even in 1973 market wages distributed income very unevenly. The top 10 percent of income earners at that time earned 21 times that of the bottom 10 percent of income earners. Today that number hasn't shrunk; it's increased dramatically. The gap has increased dramatically. Today, in 1999, the top 10 percent of income earners take home 314 times the income of the bottom 10 percent of income earners -- 314 times.
That dramatic increase in the gap between the wealthy and the poor ought to concern every one of us. This socioeconomic gap is known to be the primary determinant of health in a society. In other words, as the income gap grows, we can expect the health of the people in this country to deteriorate. A wide gap also tends to lead to social alienation and dislocation and to increasing antisocial behaviour. It also contributes to social conflict and even violence. There are many studies that document the effects of this income gap.
[ Page 12647 ]
One of them, dealing with poverty and children in Canada, was released this spring by the Canadian Council on Social Development. It showed that children in low-income families are dramatically weaker in their overall health. They're much more prone to hyperactivity and its serious academic and social effects. They score markedly lower on the basic vocabulary and math skills they'll need to get and hold a good job and to function as fully as they are able as adults. These youngsters are more likely to report that they have friends who are in trouble with school authorities or police. They are less likely to participate in organized sports. As older school-age teens, they are far more likely to be both out of school and unemployed, and we know from our own studies that this means they're far more likely to turn quickly to income assistance.
All these problems decrease as family income rises. In fact, there's a sharp break point when family income reaches $30,000 for a family of two adults and two children. From that point on, the poverty effect on children virtually disappears. It's clear that the policies followed nationally and in many provinces for the last 20 years are driving wedges between Canadians. We have been consistently and continually reducing taxes, primarily for the wealthiest among us, and at the same time cutting social programs that tend to redistribute wealth. Clearly the solution is not to do more of the same.
Some provinces in the country are dealing with the problem by seeking to redefine poverty. So does a recent report by the Fraser Institute, which recommends a market basket measure or a basic needs measure and then, by that measure, concludes that poverty isn't a problem in B.C. or in Canada. While it's important to use a number of measures to measure progress or the lack of progress in reducing poverty, one thing is clear: poverty needs action at all levels, not redefinition.
This government rejects the move to redefine poverty just as firmly as it rejects some of the very punitive measures that we've seen in other jurisdictions. The solution is to reinforce our commitment to a relatively egalitarian, cohesive and healthy society as Canadians. We must take steps to rebuild the social structure and social programs in this nation to achieve that goal, and we must take steps to return to a progressive tax system that also is effective in redistributing wealth amongst Canadians.
That is the path this government set out on five years ago. We have set out to do what we can to close the poverty gap. B.C. was feeling the effects of Canada's problems. Our income assistance caseload began to increase in 1989, as Alberta and Ontario slid into a recession and unemployed workers moved here from other provinces in growing numbers -- a typical Canadian movement of workers. Changes to the unemployment insurance program in 1990 disentitled many unemployed workers, and more of them were forced to turn to provincial income assistance for their needs. Today fully two-thirds of the people on income assistance are job-seeking workers who should be receiving employment insurance.
This government's answer to that problem was very clear: we determined and set about to develop coordinated programs to fight poverty in as many ways as a provincial government can, without waiting for others to take the lead. We set out to reach out to as many resources as possible through partnerships among ministries, federal and provincial agencies, communities, volunteers, non-profit agencies and the private sector. We set out to make clear choices and stand by them.
[1450]
In 1996 we introduced B.C. Benefits as part of a concerted set of policies and partnerships that turned the focus from welfare to work, from income maintenance to self-sufficiency. B.C. Benefits has now completed its third year of success, and today there are some 95,000 fewer people on welfare than there were three years ago. There are 21,500 fewer families on welfare and 43,250 fewer dependent children on welfare -- and these last two are due primarily to the impact of the B.C. family bonus. The proportion of British Columbia's population on welfare has dropped from the national average of 10 percent to less than 7 percent.
There's only one area where the number of persons receiving income assistance has increased, and that is with people with disabilities. It has grown because we want to provide lasting guaranteed income security to people with long-term disabilities. That's why we've created Canada's broadest legal definition of disability and made the definition of disabled a permanent designation.
I also recognize the progress in medical science and society's standards and values which allows more people with disabilities to participate more fully in the community, either as volunteers or as employees. I have also set up a ministry task force with advocates from the community, who are working with me to try to remove labour market barriers for this group of valuable citizens.
Last year the ministry had a number of specific accomplishments that I would like to report on -- first of all, a landmark in B.C. history, I think, as last year I became the first minister responsible for volunteers in the community service sector in British Columbia. We consulted widely with thousands of British Columbians who volunteered in community service last year. We sent out a draft strategy based on preliminary consultation. Soon we will issue the results of the feedback that we have had on that draft strategy.
The Ministry of Human Resources was also named the lead ministry for cooperatives, and we began stakeholder consultations to further develop this vital sector. I should point out that the co-op sector in British Columbia is the second-largest sector in Canada, and it's growing dramatically.
Last year I piloted a Healthy Kids dental van. It went across northern British Columbia. It brought dental care to over 600 people, many of whom were children, and 25 percent of those kids got dental care for the first time in their lives.
The peer lending project is a partnership with VanCity Savings in which the private sector provides the funding through lending circles, and government provides administrative and policy support. The lending circle approach is providing capital for welfare clients who are seeking to develop self-employment possibilities.
We provided convention refugees with access to the full range of B.C. Benefits, so that they can move more quickly into the workforce and integrate more quickly and comfortably into the mainstream of this province.
Last July the federal government, following the lead of the B.C. family bonus, launched the national child benefit. As a result, we were able to announce over $80 million in new programs from reinvesting the funding -- including the new B.C. earned income benefit.
In the 1999-2000 fiscal year we have a number of objectives. We expect to continue to reduce the caseload as more
[ Page 12648 ]
people move into employment. We will increase the B.C. family bonus by $2 a month -- a modest increase -- to a maximum of $105 per child per month; that's a $10 million investment in low-income families. We are considering making some improvements to the earnings exemption to better help support people and help them to move more quickly into the workforce.
We clearly need a new Cooperative Association Act to support the quickly developing co-op sector in British Columbia. The rules need to be modernized. We need to remove some of the obstacles and the outdated legislation that are holding up co-op development today in British Columbia. We need to move forward on a strategy to promote and expand the voluntary sector in British Columbia.
We'll continue to develop new options and new innovations as the caseload drops, such as lowering the seven-month barrier -- as some see it -- through a fast-tracking plan to provide better, faster service to our clients who need training on their way to entering the workforce.
[1455]
I want to conclude by saying again how very proud I am of the staff in this ministry and the remarkable work that they do, occasionally -- in fact frequently -- in very difficult conditions. They excel, quite frankly, in whatever role they fill. I think that they all ought to give themselves a pat on the back for the many accomplishments that we have seen happen last year.
That concludes my opening remarks. I welcome the chance to discuss some of the issues of my ministry with the opposition.
K. Whittred: I would like to begin by thanking the minister for her opening remarks. Basically, the minister has pretty much followed the outline of the things that I plan to address, so it seems that we are on a similar wavelength.
I would like to join with the minister in giving credit to the staff of this ministry. I have had nothing but the greatest of cooperation on all occasions when I have contacted anyone. I would particularly like to commend the work of her political assistant Mr. Wickstrom, whom I have found to be particularly generous in his efforts to help. So thank you, minister, on my behalf for the work of your staff.
I am not going to make an opening statement. I will perhaps make some concluding remarks, because I think anything I would say is going to be covered in our discussions. I have indicated to the minister that I would be starting out with a discussion on the ministry strategic plan. I've noted, just for the benefit of the minister and her staff, that there is a strategic plan that was included in this year's briefing package, which is a condensed version of the one that was issued in 1997. So I'm making the assumption that these are really the same document with minor changes; I want to just confirm that.
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct. The mandate of the ministry and our goals are pretty much the same, so the document's very similar.
K. Whittred: The first thing I would note about the two documents is that in the
more recent document -- the one that was in this year's package -- there is a fifth
strategic goal, as opposed to the 1997 one, which has four strategic goals. I would note
that in the new document, No. 4 is a new goal: "Support the social and economic
development of communities." Then it says: "
Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure. As the member knows, last year the goals included building an effective, strong ministry, which, I think it's fair to say from both of our comments, we've done pretty effectively. We're now in a position to start looking at how we link with communities.
As the member's aware, we have a new piece to government in the co-ops -- volunteers and the community service sector. That's both a recognition of the importance and import of those sectors, and also the relationship to building this province from the ground up, if you like, and also the relationship to people who are marginalized socially or economically and are on income assistance. So what we're doing now is looking as a ministry to how we can work more closely in communities, using our community role to create opportunities.
[1500]
An example, just to make it clearer for the member, is the pilot with VanCity Savings. I think we can probably look for more of those kinds of community partnerships.
K. Whittred: Now, in going through the goals, objectives and strategies, I don't
want to take the time
I am particularly interested in the fact that under specific objectives, in nearly every case there is a strategy for dealing with other ministries. I would like to just dwell on this a little bit, partly because I learned when I was critic in the area of seniors and continuing care -- in that part of the Health ministry -- that there is incredible overlap with other ministries and that this overlap is frequently very difficult to evaluate and, in fact, is often very difficult to even track down.
The minister actually referred to this in her opening remarks and, I believe, maintained that the Ministry of Human Resources is, in fact, the lead ministry in the overlap between a number of ministries. I'm wondering if the minister could take a few minutes and just comment on how this ministry fulfils that role -- if indeed it does -- as a leader amongst the other ministries and give me some examples.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be delighted to do that. Our approach -- as I said in my opening remarks and the member reiterated -- to combatting poverty and creating more inclusive communities is across government. For example, we work very closely with the Ministry for Children and Families. I deliver their B.C. Healthy Kids program in cooperation with them. My staff and my colleagues identified the need for better access to the B.C. Healthy Kids program, which as the member is likely aware, delivers services to about 42 per cent of B.C. families who are considered low-income -- a remarkable and terribly large number of families. That initiative came from, as I say, my colleagues in the community, and it came to me through my ministry. I worked with the Ministry for
[ Page 12649 ]
Children and Families, and the result was a Healthy Kids dental van that travels the north.
Similarly, I work with the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. They tend to do the business side of the cooperative development, whereas we take the overall lead. I am the contact minister and the overall lead, but we tend to refer to them and work closely with them in terms of business development.
The family bonus is technically a program of the Ministry of Finance, but where there is a need for changes and so on, they frequently come from me. I work with the Minister of Finance on those kinds of initiatives. Similarly, I'm working with the Minister of Finance on the legislative changes to co-ops. They're initiated by me and by this ministry.
We work also with the skills development division, primarily, of the Ministry of
Advanced Education, Training and Technology. They deliver training programs to our
clients. They're the experts in education; we're the experts in income support. Together,
we have been very effective in moving people from welfare into quite good jobs. I think
the average wage is somewhere between $9 and $10. They're usually contractual positions.
There's a very high retention rate, and the employer is able to do some training amongst
their staff. That program is one that we work very closely together on. Where there are
changes needed, such as
Those are some examples of how I work with other ministries. Effectively, I'm the lead spokesperson on these kinds of issues. They tend to come to me, and then I reach out and work with other ministries, as do the staff in the ministry.
[1505]
K. Whittred: I want to continue with this just a little bit, and I'll tell you why.
I have found, in my experience in this House
Now, the minister has described to me pretty much the process that is on the
organizational chart, which I understand. I'm looking for
Hon. J. Pullinger: I think what's happening in governments -- probably all governments -- is similar to what I watched happen in universities a decade or so ago, and that is that we're moving from the stovepipe approach to more of a lateral approach. Universities are moving from stovepipe disciplines to issue-based disciplines such as native and northern studies, women's studies, Canadian studies, etc. Governments are undergoing the same kind change, which in my view is a very positive change. People and issues don't fit neatly into a little box, as the member quite correctly points out.
The best answer I think I can give the member is that there are a number of vehicles,
depending on what the issue is and how many ministries it covers. For instance, there is a
deputy ministers' social policy committee which my deputy, Sharon, chairs. There is a
working group between my ministry and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and
Technology, because we work so closely together on some initiatives. The cooperatives team
in my ministry, which is separate from some of the other issues
As the members knows, we are in the process of renewing and updating the very outdated Cooperative Association Act, which is my initiative. That clearly is more of an ad hoc rather than a structural process. I mean, it's just around this piece of legislation, and when that's done, then the need for that kind of interaction will be gone. So the people who need to be involved are involved across the two ministries.
That's essentially the way we organize. Of course, I am a member of cabinet and caucus, and we have our own committees, as the member's caucus does. We connect in various ways at the political level as well. There are certainly different connections in the ministry, depending on what the issue is and the nature of the issue.
K. Whittred: I would like to inquire of the minister: do you, in your capacity as Minister of Human Resources, have an assignment? Has somebody given you an assignment that says: minister, you are responsible for the strategy, planning -- the overall planning -- for X, Y and Z or whatever the responsibilities may be? Or the alternative: is it more of a sort of an ad hoc thing, where somebody knows it's an issue, and somehow people get together on it?
The Chair: Before you start, minister, just another reminder that talking through the Chair requires using the third person.
[1510]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The prerogative of the Premier in our system is, of course, to
both designate ministers responsible for ministries and to shape those ministries, as well
as to give the minister a particular mandate, either formally or informally. Sometimes
that shows up in a press release, and sometimes there are conversations. It's similar to
There are strategies, as there are in their caucus, that are developed by caucus or cabinet and are driven at the political level by the political beliefs and values that underlie them. On the government's side, there are also issues which, it becomes apparent, need to be addressed from the interaction of MLAs with their constituents or ministers with their constituents in the broader sense. So it depends entirely upon what the issues are and where they come from in terms of how a minister or a
[ Page 12650 ]
ministry gets its mandate. It's very similar to what the opposition does, with the exception of the responsibility that one deals with a set of constituents.
K. Whittred: I won't dwell on this much longer. I do feel that it's important, and I feel it's important because it's an area that has often caused me a great deal of time as a critic in trying to find which is the appropriate ministry to go to. I will give you another example that I ran into just recently. This, unfortunately, does not specifically affect this ministry.
This was an issue that involved a program for developmentally delayed adults. I
believed that it was the Ministry for Children and Families, so I called that ministry.
Yes, it was partly their responsibility, but it was also
Perhaps, hon. Chair, we will kind of agree to leave this discussion at this point with simply the comment that I understand completely what the minister is talking about when she talks about the change from a kind of stovepipe administration to a more inclusive and global type of administration, but I'm pointing out some of the minefields, I guess, that go along with that.
Moving along, for the benefit of the minister's staff, if we look at the very back of the 1997 strategic plan, we find a discussion of issues that I thought we might spend a few moments on. First of all, I wonder if the minister could explain to me exactly what is meant by the headings "External Opportunities" and "Internal Strengths," just so we're clear.
Hon. J. Pullinger: External, effectively, are opportunities outside our ministry and outside government, and internal refers to internal strengths of the ministry. We're looking here at -- what is it? -- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. It's like doing an environmental scan to see what's out there and how we need to deal with it in order to get out in front.
I'm delighted to note that the member hasn't had any confusion around who owns what with my ministry so far. Your examples were other ones. I'm pleased with that.
K. Whittred: Thank you for that explanation. We're looking here at, basically,
strengths and weaknesses. I want to zero in on a few of these, because I think they make a
very good basis for a little bit of a philosophical discussion. At the very bottom of the
page
[1515]
Hon. J. Pullinger: What this is, is casting our net wide to try to get ahead of issues that might arise and also to try to identify opportunities that will arise. Clearly, with the Nisga'a treaty and the settlement of treaties such as the Nisga'a treaty, there is an opportunity there for us to work with first nations in a way that we haven't before, because they have an opportunity to work more directly with their own people. They will have their own authority to do that, which I see as a very positive thing. It provides us with opportunities to work with them to provide better, seamless service. I don't actually see any conflict at all. I think that if aboriginal communities become more self-sufficient, if we return to them some of that which we took away over the past 100-plus years, they have the desire and, certainly, the ability to become much more independent, which can only benefit all of the members of that community. So I see that as a great opportunity, one in which we will look for any opportunities we can to work with them for the benefit of all British Columbians.
On the other hand, when there's a developing system, it is possible that our priorities can get out of sync. There's nothing in here that points any fingers. This is simply a flag that says: "As treaties are settled and as aboriginal people take over their federally funded services, they have the right" -- and quite correctly -- "to do some of their own design." So what we need to do to prevent that from becoming a problem is to work with them to make sure that we integrate our programs. It's simply that much.
K. Whittred: Looking at just some of these items that are indicated as threats,
the one dealing with income disparity
Hon. J. Pullinger: The provinces are all tightly grouped in terms of the income gap. We have more rich people in British Columbia, contrary to the mythology. We also have more poor people, because there was a flood, as I mentioned in my remarks, of low-income people coming primarily from Alberta and Ontario, both when they were in recession and also when they made dramatic, across-the-board cuts and introduced what I would see -- I'm sure that to the member opposite, it would be different -- as punitive workfare kinds of programs. Large numbers of people flooded into British Columbia. So we tend to have more people at either end of the income scale, and that's very clustered.
As the "Behind the Headlines" report that the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives put out
[ Page 12651 ]
care funding. This has resulted in a weakening of that redistributive measure as well.
[1520]
The threat, if you like -- probably one of the greatest ones we face -- is that we have this widening social gap, and this socioeconomic gap has been recognized by world authorities as the most important determinant of health. It has been recognized as a determinant of social cohesion and a variety of other factors. When you have a growing gap, you have a breakdown in cohesion, as we have clearly seen growing over the last 20 years. That puts enormous pressures on all of the social systems at the same time as those programs are being cut federally and in many other jurisdictions.
Our approach in British Columbia has been to try to work towards that $30,000 cutoff
that I mentioned. At $30,000 for a family of two kids and two parents, there is a dramatic
shift in the effect of
We also did the B.C. family bonus. After two years of watching the positive effect of that, our Premier took it to the federal table and convinced the federal government to participate. Not in quite the same way, not in quite as effective a way -- it's very loose. We don't have national standards, really, for that. But nevertheless, we had 42 percent of all B.C. families get some portion of the B.C. family bonus. The majority of that money, I think 90 percent, goes to families with less than a $30,000 income, which is helping to boost them again.
Similarly we expanded MSP, the homeowner's grant, rental protection and a variety of other things to try to boost people as best we can up to that $30,000. We have just about completed pay equity and low-wage redress across the entire public service and public sector -- thousands and thousands, mostly women, many single parents, have gone from minimum wage and poverty up to an average, I think, of about $16 an hour plus benefits, where they can feed their families and live.
All of those programs are very important to us as a government. We intend to continue on that track. There's lots more we need to do to try to bring people up to what is a very important threshold of $30,000. To do that, we need to retain taxes on those highest-income earners, who need, quite frankly, to share the wealth with their fellow citizens.
K. Whittred: Well, I allowed myself to sort of walk into the minister's lair on that one and provide an opportunity for a speech. I think the minister might be surprised to learn that she and I do not disagree on the effects of poverty. I think any thinking person knows that the effects of poverty on a family are disastrous. In fact, that was the basis of my life's career. For many years I taught in that particular area.
I did have a couple of things arising out of the minister's remarks. I wonder if the minister could tell me the name of the report that she is basing that $30,000 income on. I would be interested to know that.
[1525]
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's a fairly broadly agreed-upon figure, so I could probably give a number of reports. But I would point the member to the Canadian Council on Social Development. That's where the low-income cutoff comes from, which is a measure of low income frequently used as a poverty measure. But it's actually that measure of where people are considered low-income. The effects of poverty, below that, do start to kick in. So there's a number of them, and I don't have them all at my fingertips. We could rustle up a few, if the member's interested, and pass the titles over.
K. Whittred: Yes.
Just one comment arising out of the minister's remarks. While I agree with the minister on the effects of poverty, I guess where this side of the House and that side of the House disagree is on how you get there -- the path that you follow in order to solve the problem. While the minister speaks about redistribution of wealth, I believe that those of us on this side of the House would talk more about creating wealth. That is probably the fundamental difference between us. I doubt that we have very many fundamental differences about the effects of poverty itself.
One other little thing I want to point out, arising from the minister's remarks regarding the status of women and women's job losses: according to B.C. Stats in April 1999, all of the job losses in B.C. last month were among women, so it states. There were 16,800 fewer women employed in March than in February, while 900 men found work. So again, I point that out to the minister.
I think we will move along now to the discussion of some of the matters surrounding the budget. Perhaps when I've had a moment to digest some of the information from the minister's opening remarks, we can return to a few of those things if they're not covered as we go through this.
I don't have many questions on this. I would like to ask a couple of things, though,
arising out of the briefing, which I must say was very thorough. My main question
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll respond to the first part as my staff are finding the details of the second part of the member's comments and questions.
I would just like to say that I couldn't agree more fully with the member about the fact that we totally disagree on how to achieve the ends. Clearly the members opposite believe in the trickle-down theory. They want to cut taxes for the 4 percent highest and the 10 percent biggest corporations. They will receive most of the benefit. I think we all agree that that's a fact when you do across-the-board tax cuts -- fair ball. I think we all want to create wealth. But we have in fact been
[ Page 12652 ]
moving more and more to "the market will decide over 20 years," and the results of 20 years are depressingly clear on that strategy. The gap is growing.
Government tends to redistribute wealth through government programs, a progressive tax system and other social programs that are redistributive. When you take those mechanisms away -- which we have -- what you notice is how stunningly effective they have been. That's what we're seeing. Little else has changed in this country, except for the flattening of the tax system, privatization, deregulation, a move to the marketplace and a move away from social programs. I think the evidence is coming in more and more solidly.
We just have to agree to disagree. They like the trickle-down theory, and we think that we need effective, fair taxes and social programs. That's just a disagreement, and I think that's what democracy is about. So I very much respect that disagreement.
[1530]
Women and jobs. I had not actually read that particular B.C. Stats report, but I have read others very recently that have demonstrated a couple of things. One is that despite the downturn in the global markets -- the Asian crisis, the softwood lumber deal and low global prices for everything from minerals to forest products and back again -- B.C. has, nevertheless, been one of the top job creators throughout all of this decade, which is tremendous. It's great. At the same time, we have cut the number of positions in government. I'm not totally convinced that that's great, but it's certainly a response to what the public wants.
We have seen recent reports from B.C. Stats that have shown that most of the jobs created in that particular time period were full time and that most of them were gained by women. I think what the member's pointing to is the phenomenon that continues to happen for women: the last hired, first fired syndrome, which is regrettable. That's why we need different kinds of affirmative action and inclusion policies to try to get women further into the workforce, especially into those higher-paying, non-traditional female jobs.
We have closed the gender gap by 10 cents or 12 cents in B.C. since we've been in government. It was the biggest gap in Canada. It shrunk, as I say, by 10 cents or 12 cents on the dollar. Belonging to a trade union closes the gap for women by another 10 cents, which is why we think we need to have fair and accessible union laws. So that is the comment there.
With respect to the FTEs, the more specific question, 50.5 FTEs are field service,
people out in the field, and 25.5 are operations -- in other words, that small piece
that's administrative here. I'll anticipate the member's next question. The reason that we
have the additional FTEs is for things such as
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The deputy has just given me an example, which is our
rewarding-excellence program. Rather than taking the approach that where an office -- one
of the 137 offices -- or a region does something spectacularly efficiently
K. Whittred: Before I follow up on the questions about the FTEs, I can't resist the opportunity to make a few remarks. First of all, I think that this side of the House does not necessarily believe in trickle-down economics. I think that we believe in giving a tax break to all people, regardless of income. I think one of the differences between our side of the House and the other side of the House is that when you take $100, let's say, out of someone's taxes, that side of the House seems to believe that that $100 disappears into some sort of a black hole and just disappears out of the economy. On the other hand, we believe that that $100 is put back into the economy. In fact, the government continues to get at least 7 percent, because it comes back in sales tax. I think that that is the basic difference between our two sides of the House in terms of how we believe that wealth is created. I think that examples from recent history have shown that governments redistributing wealth have not been too successful.
I think the other thing that enters into this picture and that is one of the characteristics of our society today that the minister has failed to address is the introduction of technology and the fact that we are in a silicon-chip revolution. Some experts would say that just as the Industrial Revolution created the middle class, the potential is there for the new revolution to destroy the middle class. Economically, that is something that we must guard against and certainly must be conscious of, as it affects this ministry.
[1535]
One of the things that often occurs to me is that as we are concerned about providing jobs and moving people from welfare into the workplace, the very unfortunate aspect of this is that we are moving people largely into low-paying jobs -- which is, I guess, the nature of the beast -- while those people who are going on into higher education and so on are getting the really high paying technological jobs. This too is contributing to the gap. The high-paying jobs that were once there for people without a lot of post-secondary education are simply not there any longer. I am spouting a lot of truisms here that everybody knows, but those are also factors, I think, in this equation. As we all know, it becomes a very, very complex issue.
Now, to get back to the real business at hand, which is the discussion about the FTEs
Hon. J. Pullinger: I believe I said 50.5 and 25.5. Roughly two-thirds - one-third.
K. Whittred: I'm sorry. Yes. The minister was talking in raw numbers; I was
talking in percentages. Now, I note that last year there was also an increase in FTEs. I
wonder if the minister can tell me how many were last year
Hon. J. Pullinger: The individuals referred to are primarily program referral officers. The fact is that 15 or 20 years
[ Page 12653 ]
ago, people who used the income assistance system were, by and large, disabled in one way or another. Today two-thirds or more of the people who use income assistance are people who should be on unemployment insurance, which is a better vehicle, quite frankly, for moving people from job to job and for filling that gap.
We are therefore running almost a dual system in British Columbia, backfilling what the
federal government cut. Therefore there's a need for program referral officers, who will
try to help people find work or refer them to training programs. As the member is probably
aware
Also, in respect of the problem with low-paying jobs, that is why we have the B.C. family bonus and child care and a better minimum wage and all those other things. That's also why we made grade-12-equivalency free in British Columbia and have been consistently reducing the economic barriers to post-secondary education and building them into things like the Island Highway, which tripled the apprenticeships. So I totally agree with the member, but on implementing it, I guess we disagree, because Alberta and Ontario have gone quite the other way. They're using a market-based system, and it's becoming more expensive and less accessible for education there. We are running two systems here in this ministry, and we try to target our resources and our programs and our staff to help people with very different needs.
[1540]
K. Whittred: I wonder if you could tell me: how many workers does it take to implement an excellence program?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We've got six family maintenance workers and six verification officers, for a total of 12 for that particular program.
K. Whittred: I'm a little bit intrigued by this rewarding-excellence program. I wonder: is this a reward program? Does somebody get a prize, a trophy, a plaque? Exactly what is involved?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Effectively, what we do
So when we find a region such as northern Vancouver Island that is doing a spectacular job of increasing the living amounts that women have to live on by not only getting more family maintenance agreements but also getting higher family maintenance agreements, we reward them with additional resources to do an even a better job. So it's an incentive, obviously, across the ministry for staff to say: "Look, if we can improve how we support our clients, if we can actually make a difference in their lives through some of the tools that we have, if we can show that we're starting to make a difference, we'll get resources and be able to really make a difference." That's the philosophy behind it.
K. Whittred: I think I'm starting to understand. I'll just tell you what I understand. There is a relationship between the rewarding of excellence and the enforcement of the family maintenance program, so that a worker who is successful at tracking down a parent who has not formerly been paying would be rewarded. This is a service that is to be rewarded. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes. As I said earlier, we consider that the parents -- both
parents -- have an obligation to their children, and where one is not fulfilling that
obligation, the ministry will assist the other parent by encouraging them, through legal
means, to do so through the family maintenance enforcement plan. In many cases where the
ministry has done that, the difference in the income has been enough, along with the B.C.
family bonus and the Healthy Kids program and expanded medical premium assistance and
child care and better minimum wage and all of those things
[1545]
In British Columbia you have the best opportunity of all the provinces to move up out
of a low-paying job in the first year. So getting people into the job market and into that
first job is a very important thing to do. Therefore we consider
K. Whittred: I'm finding this very interesting. Is there any research that was done within the ministry that would indicate where the ministry might have the greatest success in this program?
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's based on actual performance. When we actually see the results in a region, they're acknowledged by saying: "Okay, you've moved in that direction and have acknowledged the need to do that. It's working, and therefore we're going to provide you with a little help to make it work even better." So it's based on actual performance.
K. Whittred: So a region, then, that has been relatively successful in finding
parents who are then put on the family maintenance program
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, and it's not just about getting family maintenance. It's about improving the lot of women, primarily -- single parents, primarily -- who are having to depend on income assistance to feed and clothe their children when the other parent should be participating. It's not just about getting family maintenance enforcements. It's about increasing the number of people who get that kind of support and also doing everything we can to ensure that it's the best possible support in the circumstances of all the individuals involved. As I say, it has resulted in people being able to move off the income assistance caseload and into independence, which is where everybody wants to be.
[ Page 12654 ]
We're rewarding the outcome. We're rewarding the staff who are doing an excellent job in that region and providing them with the resources to do it more easily and better.
K. Whittred: The minister spoke about rewarding the outcome. I want to be clear on what the outcome is. The outcome would be moving someone from welfare into an alternative situation. Do I understand that correctly?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Moving people from welfare to work is in fact what we do.
When the region -- there's only one region that's involved in this at present
K. Whittred: Moving back to the number of FTEs, we know that 12 of them are in this program. That still leaves about 64 unaccounted for.
[1550]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The other FTEs are in support of level 2 disability clients. We have increased the collection strategy. We have repayment agreements with people. We try to do that as effectively and as sensitively as we can, and that takes people to do. We have sponsorship defaults. The federal government has not been following up on its responsibility to ensure that the contractual arrangements that a sponsor undertakes are followed through on. So we are effectively taking over that responsibility. It's simply an off-loading from the federal government to the province that has taken happened.
Alternative service delivery. We're looking at ways to better serve parts of the
province, particularly smaller communities, so we're working on that. We're looking at
K. Whittred: Obviously, where all this is going -- and I did want to ask -- is that in the last two years, between last year and this year, there's been an increase of 140 FTEs in the ministry, while at the same time the costs of the ministry have been going down. Just for example, in this year's budget the operating costs are up from roughly $140 million to $152 million, while the payment section -- the actual portion of the budget that is going to clients -- is going down. I'm wondering how the minister explains that particular phenomenon -- even within, I think, the scope of the minister's own philosophy.
Hon. J. Pullinger: In this ministry, most of the money -- 90 percent of the money -- goes directly to clients or services; 10 percent is administrative. Historically, the ministry has been run very much as a gatekeeping activity. The staff in this ministry are terrific people. They want to work more with people in communities, and as the caseload drops, we're able to do a little bit more while still keeping the administrative costs extremely low.
But the fact is that if we want to work effectively with marginalized people -- people who are socially isolated, who are living in poverty -- we need people to do that. Therefore I would hope that over time, as the caseload continues to drop, we will see a lower ratio of clients per staff member, so they can work more hands-on with human beings rather than simply being gatekeepers for an income assistance cheque. That's what they want to do. They're superbly good at it -- very caring people that want to do that. It seems to me that that's precisely what this ministry ought to do -- try to be the best facilitator and empowerer that it can be with people, to help them find the resources to address their personal needs and to help them become independent, because that's what they all want to do. That just takes warm human bodies, and that's why the increase.
K. Whittred: I had an experience one time where I was familiar with an operation that was within the purview of government. This institution had a small company store, if you like; you could call it that. It was basically just a supply room. Anyway, somebody decided that there was too much pilfering going on from this little supply room, and so they decided they needed a storekeeper. They hired a storekeeper at probably, I don't know, $30,000 a year. If they had stolen everything in the room, it wouldn't have amounted to $5,000. There was nothing in it but pencils.
I just tell that little story to lead up to this question. In the minister's own mind, is the minister satisfied that the cost savings that are being realized in those areas where people have been placed in cost-saving endeavours are in fact worth the expenditure?
[1555]
Hon. J. Pullinger: If we can improve the lives and the lots of marginalized people, yes, absolutely it is. Of course it's worth the effort.
On this side we tend to have a dual set of measures. The analogy that the member uses would point to chasing fraud. When we do that, we do so because it's a responsibility to the taxpayers, which we take very seriously. Our ministry is a very efficient and effective ministry, and we intend to keep it that way.
But there are increased costs to providing human service, and that's the whole debate
about taxes and who should pay them and what they should pay them for, and redistribution
of income and services to people who need them, and all of that that we have gotten into
before. So we use two measures. One is economic, particularly in terms of just money in
and money out, which is collecting money that is due to government. We make very sure that
that is cost-effective. The other is not quite so objective a measure. It's about human
lives; it's about communities; it's about the social and human well-being of families and
kids. So if we are incurring some costs and doing it better than -- in my view and the
view of my colleagues
[ Page 12655 ]
K. Whittred: I am going to ask my colleague from Vancouver-Langara to take a turn.
V. Anderson: I apologize to the minister for not hearing her opening remarks. I was out meeting 40 students, and they demanded some attention, so I had to be there for that purpose.
I could guess fairly well what the minister would be saying, and as I listen to the discussion, I can fill in mostly where we're coming from. Partly it depends on which side of the picture you're describing. Both sides of the picture have their validity, and it depends on which side you look at.
Just following up the discussion that's taken place just now
Hon. J. Pullinger: If an individual is on disability too, under that very broad category of disability with permanent status, they can certainly undertake educational activities and retain their income assistance. A single parent with little kids under seven is exempt from some of the other rules. Beyond that -- and I think we did this last year -- there is an equity issue for other people who want to go back to school, and that is that the standard way people do that is through part-time jobs and student loans. Therefore our job is to try to bring people up to that place where they can -- if somebody is very marginalized -- get a part-time job. Their skills are up to that place, and then they can do what they need to do to advance their own education.
The way we've done that piece -- and any detail on that needs to go to my colleagues,
obviously -- is that we have made B.C
What we're trying to do is provide people with the means to get to mainstream, I guess, or to take advantage of educational opportunities. At the same time we're trying to make those opportunities, and are in fact making those opportunities, the most accessible in Canada. We will continue in that direction.
[1600]
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'd like to just follow up on that a bit. I appreciate that on disabilities too, and I'm happy that people can go and finish that. Without that, they have a handicap which is a double handicap. But I want to come back to the people who aren't disabled or don't have a physical or mental disability that we would recognize, at least at this point, but who do have a basic educational disability. I think we all agree at this point that without the grade 12 basic, your possibility of going anyplace of any permanent nature is very slim and that the kinds of jobs you are able to get, even on a temporary basis, you're not likely to be able to keep without at least a grade 12 education. That's a major disability.
I'm wondering, with the kind of philosophy you have put forward, why that basic
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We have basic training programs to help people get and keep a job. We have in British Columbia the highest minimum wage and the best opportunity to move up off that in the first year. We've got good employment standards that have reached out and covered a number of vulnerable workers. Also, workers in B.C. have a fair chance of unionizing to improve their lot as well, which is one of the best ways to improve your wages. They have a right to organize, as do businesses. So we have balanced those systems, with the aid of the private sector -- the business and labour community -- to try to make that fairer than it had been, because it was demonstrably unfair.
But there is an equity issue. What the member is proposing is that if somebody comes onto the income assistance program, they will have access to free education, which many, many more low-income workers would not have. I fail to understand why one group of citizens should have access to income support while they go to school while others who are working at lower-income jobs and going to night school or whatever should not. That's the equity issue. I know that the policy that the B.C. Liberal Party has put forward is to require that every single individual on income assistance must have grade 12 and be enrolled as a condition of getting income assistance. But apart from the approximately $500 million price tag for that, and apart from what may be some human rights issues, it's simply not practical. The other thing the member would find, if they actually implemented that policy, is that the very rational, intelligent people in British Columbia who are low income would, of course, find a way to go on to income assistance -- why wouldn't they? -- so that they too could get income support and free education.
I believe strongly that that is a goal that we should have. It would be nice to have totally free education throughout the system. We have been moving in that direction by making grade-12-equivalency free and dropping the costs and increasing the supports for people going to school, but it's a fairly long way off. I think the member would have to agree that there is an equity issue here and that it's simply not fair to say that if you're working part-time and managing to get by, you don't get the support; but if you go on income assistance, you do. It's just not fair.
V. Anderson: I was interested in the minister's reply, because again, it's two sides of a discussion, when she talks about equity. Equity for grade 12 education is only if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, then you're out of luck. That's fairly clear, so I'll leave it at that.
Coming back to the discussion that you were having a while ago on family maintenance, how much of the family maintenance -- what percentage of family maintenance, per-
[ Page 12656 ]
haps, is the way I'll ask this -- actually increases
[1605]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We in this ministry operate on a belief that people ought to earn as much as they can and have as much of their own income as they can -- independent money -- but if you fall below a certain level, we will top that up. Furthermore, we have chosen, as a government, to do something very unique, and that's top you up somewhat through the B.C. family bonus and other such programs if you're not on income assistance. We've extended it for that whole very low-income part of society.
If an individual receives child support -- which virtually everyone ought to who is a
parent -- we in British Columbia are unique in that we increase the top-up rate for that
individual. In other words, you know, they keep all of their
V. Anderson: I understand what the minister said, but I'm still asking
Hon. J. Pullinger: The amount of private income an individual has -- from family maintenance specifically -- depends on what the other spouse pays. That's a decision of the courts. We assist people in getting that judgment, and we help them to get the best judgment they can in the interests of the kids.
That's an impossible number to calculate, unless you were to go and pick 100 individuals with family maintenance. Then we could go and see what the court awarded them. We could see how much they earn and what their top-up amount is and what the difference would be had they had no family maintenance income. The member has asked me to give a calculation of a number that I can't possibly give unless I know the individual court judgments on those people.
Once again, for explanation, a private income comes first. If that doesn't meet the minimum income assistance rates, we will top it up. If there are earnings or some additional amounts in terms of that top-up -- also, if there's family maintenance; again, that's unique in Canada -- we increase the top-up rate by $100 for that particular family.
V. Anderson: I'll try one other way of approaching this. Can the minister give
some
[1610]
Hon. J. Pullinger: There's a net savings to government, if you like, from the
replacement -- on the broad spectrum -- of state income for private income of about
I think it's also important to recognize that by us making
People move off quickly. But getting that judgment for that individual while they're on assistance means that they're just that much better off for the duration of the time that the children are at home. So there is an additional benefit to the greater good of the public from doing that.
V. Anderson: Just to follow that up one more step, since you've indicated that there's a $10 million to $12 million savings on behalf of the ministry, does that in effect mean that the ministry is using those savings to undertake some of the other programs that the minister has told us about?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The savings at any ministry are net savings to corporate government, and the decisions about how funds are allocated are made through the budgeting process every fall/winter. So they don't automatically just stay in the ministry, and under the rules of accountability, you can't simply take funds from one purpose and use them for another purpose without going through the budgeting process.
V. Anderson: Moving on in some of the reports, then, part of the corporate services is for personnel training. Could
[ Page 12657 ]
you say what the nature of the personnel training that is being done at the moment is?
You talked about the quality of staff. What is the training that's done and how much is
Hon. J. Pullinger: Headquarters and field staff take training when they come on
as part of their work, and that essentially supports practices that serve
[1615]
We're also very committed to quality service. There's been a tremendous amount of work in the last year, and that means that we need to provide training to staff, as one of many things -- to both in-house staff as well as contractors and others -- to make sure that they understand the rules and know how to deal effectively, sometimes with difficult people. So there's ongoing training as well as the initial training.
V. Anderson: On the quality of service, is there a process whereby those who are using the services have a regular encouragement to give feedback and evaluate the service -- not just when they're mad and have complaints, but on a regular basis so that when you're looking at quality of service, there's a way that it can be measured? And if so, what has been the response to that?
Hon. J. Pullinger: There certainly is ongoing evaluation within the organization from those responsible to do that. But where I'm going as a minister and where the ministry is therefore going is to work increasingly closely with communities. So there are dialogues beginning to happen in some of the places, where we're looking at improving or changing the way we deliver services.
There are questionnaires at this point that the public can fill in, and so on. We do surveys, for instance, about accessibility, acceptability of service, effectiveness, openness, equity, etc., in recognition of the broader role. So there is some feedback, and we're moving ever closer to working more directly with communities on an ongoing basis.
V. Anderson: Moving over to the area of administration of benefits, has the
number of people for whom administration of benefits increased or decreased
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to move that we take a five-minute recess.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The quick number crunch here is that we have 2,085 field staff and 376 operations.
V. Anderson: Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Do you mean that we did all those numbers for nothing, Val?
V. Anderson: No, the numbers are useful, but what I was asking was: how many people are having their funds administered?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Oh, right. That's right. I forgot the question -- third-party administration.
V. Anderson: Yeah, that was the question. How many are having their funds administered, and has that number of persons risen or decreased? I've been hearing suggestions that more and more people are having their funds administered. If so, I'd be curious to know what the trend is and why, if the minister has a reason for whichever way the trend is going.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The number is fluid. People tend to
What we try to do is provide as much support as we can in order to provide as much
independence as we can, whether it's in people's lives while their income's coming through
the ministry or it's independent income. We try to increase people's independence in every
way we can. We certainly don't like to have third-party administration of benefits any
longer
[1625]
V. Anderson: Thank you for that response. What about the situation with hardship
benefits? The report back that we get is that hardship benefits are much more difficult to
get now than they were -- at the moment. There are very few reasons now why hardship
benefits are acceptable to inquire
Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have the numbers in front of me in terms of the number of people who get hardship benefits. We may be able to get that. But essentially one of the things that any income assistance system needs to try to do is find a balance between some flexibility and standard rules, so that the rules are fairly and evenly applied but with some flexibility to respond to individuals' concerns in different situations.
Hardship assistance clearly is a piece of that flexibility, but it has some standards
itself. It's essentially supposed to be a very short-term benefit for individuals who are
not eligible for regular income assistance through one of the programs. It's for things of
an unforeseen nature. That's what the programs are for. If you have a need that falls
within those guidelines, such as refugees
[ Page 12658 ]
the full assistance package. They didn't qualify, so they got hardship where there were kids.
I've got some numbers here which I think are what the member wants. In December '95 they were just over 10 percent of the caseload, and as of January this year it's just over 6 percent of the caseload. That is fairly consistent with -- in fact, it almost exactly reflects it -- the number of the caseload decrease, from 10 percent of the population to 6 percent. But clearly a smaller percentage are getting hardship as well.
V. Anderson: Thank you very much. I know the change for convention refugees was very important. We raised it a couple of years ago, and we're pleased that the ministry followed through on that.
Do you have any indication of how many people that has affected? Has there been any tally on the number of convention refugees that have come into the system -- fully into it -- because of that change?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't have that minutiae of detail here. We'll be happy to provide the member, in a letter or phone call later, with whatever we've got.
V. Anderson: Okay.
K. Whittred: We're going to move on now to a discussion largely around level 2 disability benefits. Just a word of explanation to the minister: my colleague and I have chosen to concentrate our discussion on this particular aspect of the ministry because this -- as I'm sure the minister may very well be aware -- is where I am receiving the greatest representation from the community. Therefore it made the most sense to concentrate on this area.
In meeting with the community on the disability levels of this ministry, we are confronted with a community that is, I think, very much at odds with the philosophy of the ministry. Over and over again, I hear comments from the community -- and remember, we're talking now of the community that is disabled; we're not talking of the community at large -- that this is the ministry of no, that this is the ministry without a heart, that this is the ministry of the bottom line. And on it goes. I'm quite sure that the minister would not be comfortable with these particular descriptions, and I'm wondering if we can just start by allowing the minister to comment on those observations.
[1630]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I recognize that it's very difficult for people, but I have a little bit of trouble with that kind of comment coming from the opposition. After all, they ran on a platform of 23 percent cuts. They have said that they admire and will emulate what's happened in Ontario and Alberta, where we have seen health care gutted. They've got the lowest per-capita health care spending, the most expensive education programs. The Premier of Ontario has said to cut pregnant women by $38, because they'll spend it on beer. He's said that the problem lies with the parents. He doesn't believe there are poor children; the problem lies with the parents, who are not feeding their children properly. They've frozen the minimum wage, etc.
So I just have a little bit of trouble when
K. Whittred: First of all, I would like it on record that I have never in my life spoken in support of any other province's system. I have not spoken in support of the Ontario system; I have not spoken in support of the Alberta system. In fact, I have been silent on any statement of policy whatsoever.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Precisely the point.
K. Whittred: The minister says: "Precisely the point." I might point out to the minister that the purpose of this process, this estimates process, is that this side of the House gets to ask the questions, and that side of the House -- who, by whatever system, is the government -- is supposed to answer the questions.
Quite frankly, the point of this exercise is not to have the minister put words in my
mouth and tell me what I believe. I put a very legitimate question to the minister. I am
the messenger. I am reading from my notes, and I am saying what people in the community,
including
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. I think the Chair has cautioned members in the past that this particular room is not wired quite the same as the House. Interjections are not easily handled by Hansard, so would members please give the member the floor.
K. Whittred: All right. I am hesitant to re-ask the question, because I really don't want to simply provide the minister with another opportunity for a political statement -- a statement telling me what I believe. I don't believe that is an accurate reflection of the policy of this side of the House. That is the definition that that side of the House would like to give us. Unfortunately, I would like to think that we can define ourselves, and they may think whatever they like about us.
[1635]
Getting down, then, to some specifics. I wonder if the minister, getting back to goals and objectives and the strategic plan, could show me where in any of the documents -- and I'm speaking of the strategic plan; I'm speaking of the acts or the regulations -- we have a statement about caring or compassion for the disabled.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I guess our statement of caring and compassion for the disabled has been in the fact that we've worked with the disabilities community and we've maintained the benefits despite federal cuts. Those members not only agreed with the cuts but said: "Cut more." We have maintained the best health care system, which disabled people, many of them, obviously rely on greatly -- the best health care system and funding in all of Canada, despite their demands to cut it.
[ Page 12659 ]
Bob Evans, the health economist from UBC, made the point this year that we could wipe
out our deficit and have a $500 million surplus -- this year, right now, today. All we'd
have to do is cut our health care spending to the average of other provinces, including
spending on physicians. Our compassion is in the fact that we are actively working with
the community. We have the broadest definition of "disabled" in this country.
We've made it permanent
We won't do what Ontario and Alberta do -- the provinces that we hear about day in and day out as the model for how to do it. You know, these members opposite ran on a budget and a platform of a 23 percent cut to income assistance. We have since heard the member for West Vancouver-Capilano say that the government should have an ID program with voice impressions before people can get on income assistance. They have a policy that says that you've got to go and get either a needle-track check or dog-sniffing or a blood test or a urinalysis or something, so they can find out if you have an addiction before you can qualify for welfare.
That is what is heartless, hon. Chair. I just don't think those members on that side have one iota of credibility in terms of being able to ask questions about heartlessness, because they are the ones who have advocated for cuts to every social assistance program in this province, in this country.
C. Hansen: As a cabinet minister, you should read Morfitt's report about what the estimates process is all about. It's not what you're doing right now.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. Would you please
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. It is the tradition in this House
C. Hansen: She's practising to be an opposition member.
T. Nebbeling: She'll be a lousy one too.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. It is the tradition in this House that during estimates, the minister's estimates are reviewed by all members. Members may ask a question and may make statements. The minister may respond. Those are the rules. I would suggest that sometimes the response is a reflection of the question. The Chair has little control over that. The Chair's obligation is to keep order. So I recognize the member.
K. Whittred: As I said, I am becoming hesitant to ask anything, because I get a speech on either what I believe or what the minister believes, which is not the point of this exercise.
Now, I asked a question. In fact, I was asked to ask this question by an organization
that would traditionally be very supportive of that side of the House. They asked me to
ask the minister: where in the strategic plan, where in the act
Hon. J. Pullinger: You know, the members opposite have been listening to estimates. They've got this wonderful dodge to avoid taking any responsibility for their own positions, and that is that their questions are clearly way out of sync with what they have run on, which is a 23 percent cut, needle-track checks on your arm, voice ID -- all of those kinds of ugly, punitive things, including harsh workfare and a mandatory $500 million program that will take away people's human rights and jam them into schools. The dodge is that they pretend that the question is somebody else's.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. The minister has the floor.
T. Nebbeling: We'll ask questions.
The Chair: The minister has the floor and is responding to the other member. Come to order, please.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I simply want to make the point, for the record, that I don't accept the member's dodge. They've been doing it, on that other side of the House. I would challenge the members opposite to stand up and tell us how the $3.8 billion credibility gap includes anything but great big cuts for people with disabilities.
[1640]
K. Whittred: Hon. Chair, the great irony about this is that I know the answer to the question. I know where the statement is. I want to know whether the minister does. I want to know whether the minister knows what the strategic plan of her ministry is. I believe that 47 percent of the people on level 2 disability suffer from mental illness. I'm simply asking: where is the statement that says: "We care, and we are compassionate" -- or words to that effect? That is a simple, straightforward question that relates to the strategic plan of the ministry.
If you look at the report of the auditor general, he speaks to evaluating ministries by looking at their plan. He suggests that we get away from this nonsense about asking how many workers danced on the head of a pin. I can ask that kind of question if you want, but I don't intend to.
I came in here prepared to try to evaluate the goals and aspirations of this ministry. We accomplish that by having some sort of a reasonable discussion. We do not accomplish that by having the minister try to define what I believe or by demanding that this side of the House present its election platform. If they want that, then by all means call an election. But we are not in an election campaign. We are in estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources for the 1999-2000 budget.
So I ask once again
Hon. J. Pullinger: I find it amazing that the member opposite says that she knows where it is in the community plan, but clearly she wouldn't provide that response to the
[ Page 12660 ]
organization that asked her the question, because she feels the need to bring it to the floor of the House for some third party that she won't provide a response to. That is completely bizarre.
Actions speak louder than words, and we in this province have provided, according to
the people I meet with
We have a philosophy on this side of the House that
The members opposite have encouraged the federal government to cut funding for social
programs. They ran on a program of cutting 23 percent out of income assistance, and that
is a fact. I think that the difference between the two sides of a House is important in a
democracy, as was said earlier. It's very important. We have different ideas about
[1645]
V. Anderson: The minister has demonstrated her thoughts quite clearly, and I'm glad she has them on the record, because it saves us trying to demonstrate the difficulty we have here in trying to get answers to questions. I hope she does send it out and mail it everywhere, as the minister says she's likely to do.
One of the realities
Also, we find a quote from one of the persons who works very well with the people on
the east side of Vancouver who says "the welfare system is falling very far behind on
the east side, even though a lot of money is being poured into it." Pouring money
into a system and getting results out are not the same thing. What we are trying to
reflect back to the minister
Let me use my example as a minister of the church. One of the things that we have elders in the church for is to get the information back to the minister that people won't give us directly. That is their purpose: to tell us the things that people wouldn't tell us directly because they didn't want to be disrespectful or because they were frightened or because they didn't feel they had the proper ways to express it. They would tell it to another person, knowing that that information was coming back.
It's very important that we hear not only the good things that are said about us periodically, but it's very important that we hear what other people are saying, which we may consider to be bad things. The relevant question isn't always: are those comments right or wrong? The question is: if the comments and the feelings are there, what are we going to do about them? Unless we're willing to hear them and respond to them and accept them for what they are -- honestly expressed -- then that's a very difficult kind of position that we're in.
One of the reasons that that comes up is that it's only within the last three to four years in this government that we have heard them expressing continually that welfare is only to be used as a last resort. It was a fail-safe system. Prior to that, welfare was talked about as a safety net. It was talked about as a way to help people who, for whatever reason, were in a difficult circumstance, to carry them over for a period of time -- whatever that time might happen to be -- and to help them to get into a more positive position in their lives in relationship to other people.
[1650]
When the government has begun to emphasize -- as they do again and again, and it's only
with the last couple of ministers that that's been true
People with disabilities have enough difficulty trying to overcome the difficulties in their lives. They are not disabled people; they are people with disabilities. They have many abilities, many great abilities, in their lives. They're wonderful people. It's just that their disabilities make it difficult in our society to earn a living in the way many other people do. Our society has been built on the understanding that we will provide for members of our families and for members of our communities from the wealth that we collectively have.
For years that was done by community volunteer agencies, not by governments. It was not done by governments; it was done by community volunteer agencies. It was only after the Second World War that we started to reorganize. Governments began to take over this function, feeling that they could do it better than the community agencies could. In fact, gov-
[ Page 12661 ]
ernments previous to this one did away with community agencies. They ruled them and legislated them out of existence and said: "We'll take it over and do it from there."
Unfortunately, this government has followed somewhat in that path, only in a little
different way. They have unionized the volunteer sector. Not that there's anything wrong
with being unionized. That's a good venture, and we would applaud it. But what they have
done in doing the process is taken away the freedom from volunteer, non-profit agencies to
do the kind of loving and caring
Just to give an illustration
Hon. J. Pullinger: First of all, I certainly share the member's concern in the growth of poverty. I would like to point out, however, that in all of the reports that I've read, all of the provinces -- as I said in my opening remarks, and I know the member wasn't here -- are clustered very, very closely together. There is a minute difference.
But the fact is that if we flattened out the tax system from a progressive one to a
flatter one
[1655]
The fact that we have this outrageous level of child poverty is directly related to the fact that the gap is widening and minimum wages and everything else on the bottom that people depend on have been dropping dramatically. So the answer isn't to drive down the minimum wage further or to freeze it, as Harris did in Ontario and the members opposite have committed to do here; the answer is to try to redistribute wealth in this country and in this province. The answer is to have a progressive tax system to go back to the "social contract" following World War II that the member alluded to, where you pay according to ability and receive according to need. We seem to have lost sight of that social contract.
I'm quite surprised, actually, that the member has run on a platform of cutting 23 percent out of income assistance, of cutting $2 billion in taxes for the rich, of not settling land claims. Aboriginal people are at the bottom of the totem pole in this province. They are the poorest people in British Columbia, and yet those members opposite stood up and voted no.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger: They wouldn't vote for settling a land claim which provides
the social and economic base and the independence for those people involved to get on with
their lives. We're one of three provinces that continues to build social housing -- cut by
the federal government and supported by those members opposite. And yes there has been a
change in
Interjections.
The Chair: On a point of order, I recognize the member for Prince George North.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This chamber was very quiet when we listened to the member for Vancouver-Langara reminisce about the good old days of an un-unionized volunteer sector dealing with the poor in our province. I understand that his platform may be to take it back to those days. But this chamber was quiet and respectful. And now, when the minister replies, I hear all sorts of heckling. Frankly, I'd like to hear her comments.
The Chair: The Chair would remind members that we are here to debate and discuss the minister's estimates, and the rules of estimates are that the debate be strictly relevant. The Chair allowed the member for Vancouver-Langara considerable latitude in making his statement and asking his question, and the Chair would ask that all members respect the minister's right to respond. I trust that both sides will, in their continuing debate, be strictly relevant, which is what the rules require.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I also want to respond to the member's comment that we the government have unionized the voluntary sector. We have neither organized the business sector into associations nor organized workers into associations. That's a decision of the workers. That is one of the best ways for people to improve their own condition. It closes the gender wage gap by 10 percent where there's a union. But I know that the members opposite don't like unions and don't want to see people unionize, and that's unfortunate.
I also find that the opinion
There have been a number of changes. There has been a change in attitude, definitely. There has also been a change in response to the federal cuts: the virtual elimination of unemployment insurance for two-thirds of the people that should qualify and the migration from Alberta and Ontario to here, primarily. There were 2,200 people a month, coming mostly from Alberta and Ontario, for a significant period of time.
[1700]
What we've done is change so that we move all the way across government to try to deal with poverty issues. We have
[ Page 12662 ]
effected pay equity and low-wage redress across the public sector and public service.
Thousands and thousands of low-income people, mostly women -- many of them single parents
-- now have a living wage, rather than $7 an hour and no benefits. We're building social
housing. We're settling land claims. We have the B.C. family bonus and all of those
programs which are effectively redistributing wealth and helping people on the low end of
the income scale. The B.C. family bonus, for example
There's a tremendous amount left to do. I fully accept that, and I will certainly continue to advocate for better working conditions and higher wages at the low end and fair taxes for all, with recognition of that growing income gap across this country and in fact across the developed nations in the world.
We have a policy in this ministry, which has always been the case
So when an individual applies for income assistance, we ask them, and assist them in many cases, to apply for other sources of funding, including the Canada Pension Plan, to which they might be entitled. CPP, for instance, is $900-plus for an individual with a disability, whereas income assistance is $771. So clearly that individual is better off to have the Canada Pension Plan income. There are just over 5,000 individuals on level 2 disability benefits -- in fact, 5,286 who receive some portion of their income from the Canada Pension Plan.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member, the Chair has perhaps been negligent by allowing both sides considerable latitude, one in asking a question and making a statement and the other in responding. I would hope that we can now get back to the traditional rules, which say that the debate must be strictly relevant.
Also, a reminder that spontaneous interjections, while they are a tradition in the House, are much more disruptive in this chamber because of the sound system, so would hon. members please respect the member who has the floor.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments and her concern about the report by some people of people coming into British Columbia because they find this a good province to live in. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case; people are moving out of British Columbia. So no wonder the number of people that they have to deal with are less. It's the same as the people moving out of the school system. They've moved out of the school system because they've moved out of the province. Therefore it's not because we're doing a better job in the province that our numbers have gone down in some of our assistance; it's because the difficulty in the province is so great that they're moving out.
I appreciate the minister's comment on the Canada Pension Plan. Is it not true
[1705]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Where the income falls below income assistance levels, we certainly top it up to income assistance levels. But if the member's suggesting that people ought to be able to have a pension entitlement and not access it but go on income assistance instead, there would be a dramatic increase in the caseload, because there's a large number of people who have private pensions or public pensions of one form or another.
We have to have the same rules. So if you have a pension entitlement -- for instance, from your employment -- that you would prefer to hold until you're 65 and go on income assistance in the meantime, the rules prevent that. In respect of the taxpayer, I think that's the fair way to deal with the system. If you have private resources, whether they be through a publicly funded system or a private system, you have an obligation to access those resources. If they fall below the minimum income levels, we will certainly top them up, and there are other benefits that people can also, in some cases, apply for.
V. Anderson: The minister didn't say so, but I gather that she agreed with me
that because of going on it, people will have to have a lesser income for the rest of
their lives. That's a concern that's been raised by the community. Some people in the
community have asked, on the question of equity
Hon. J. Pullinger: I apologize; I thought I had explained it clearly, but I'll try again. I also want to do the same with the member as he did with me. I'm assuming that the B.C. Liberals would have a policy that says they will allow people to have private pensions and hang onto them until they're 65 and be paid income assistance in the meantime. So I think we need to have that on the record as well.
The policy across government is a standard one. The requirement is, in all cases, that if you have a source of private income, whether it's family maintenance or a private pension or private assets, and however they come, whether they come through a public means or strictly private means, the rules are that you must access those resources first. Then, if required, provincial taxpayers will provide additional assistance to bring that individual up to a minimum income level.
We on this side of the House don't find it acceptable for somebody to hold on to a private income or asset and have the taxpayer support them so that they can have a higher income later. Although it would certainly be nice for them to have that and I appreciate some people's concerns, it's simply not acceptable to the taxpayer.
V. Anderson: With the person who has a disability and who gets transferred onto the Canada Pension Plan disability
[ Page 12663 ]
plan, can the minister confirm if they, in the process of that transfer and rather than being under the other, lose their medical coverage? Do they lose bus passes? Are there any downturns for them? Do they have the same bus passes, the same medical coverage and the same support systems as before they made the transfer?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll just add some detail to the last question. Whether one's income goes up or down when you move to the Canada Pension Plan specifically depends, somewhat, on your eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement. In most cases, there is no income loss. I would also, for the record, like to note that most people, whether on income assistance or not, tend to take their Canada Pension Plan early, I'm informed.
On the specific question of additional benefits, it was a policy, when we started
enforcing that change
[1710]
K. Whittred: Obviously we hit a sore point when we started to ask questions about the disability level category. We were not getting any satisfactory responses. I see very little point in continuing to give the minister a platform to give the same speech over and over, so we will move on to other issues.
I have in front of me a publication called "Contact," the community sector newsletter. I'm wondering if I could get a little background on this. How long has it been out, and how much does it cost the ministry for what appears to be basically a propaganda sheet?
Hon. J. Pullinger: For the record, I'd like to just point out that the sore point was not in what we're doing on this side of the House; the sore point was in the hypocrisy of the members opposite. I too will move on, however.
"Contact" is a magazine that the community actually has told me they appreciate very much -- having that information. It's very difficult to get. They have input, as the member can see. It's a vehicle for them -- in some cases, for the third sector -- to communicate through. But it's primarily to provide information in terms of what's going on across government on the issues that people care about. It's produced in-house, and so there are some mailing costs, which are minimal. For all of last year, the total cost was less than $7,000.
K. Whittred: I was interested in the minister's remarks that this is in fact something the community was looking for. I can't help noting just a couple of things that it says. It says that B.C. is number one in jobs, that employment increased, that employment levels for B.C. women increased by more than 3 percent. Just a few moments ago I read a statistic from our own B.C. Stats that in fact said that losses of jobs were very high amongst women. So I do find a little bit of hypocrisy, perhaps, from that side of the House.
I'm looking at this issue of "Contact," which is the February 1999 issue. It says: "Focus on Housing." I know that this government has claimed to be the only government in Canada that is still doing something about social housing. I'm asking the minister to please share with this group what this ministry is in fact doing in that direction.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I have said on numerous occasions that this government is one
of two -- and I believe somebody else has jumped into housing again, which makes it three
I don't have responsibility in this ministry for the building of social housing per se. I do have the cold-weather strategy. Last year we started very early and had the best-ever coordinated strategy in British Columbia. I think it's one of the better ones among the provinces. Also, we have shelters in this ministry. And I've participated through this ministry in other kinds of housing projects, such as making a contribution, with some shelter funding we had, to the two hotels we bought in the downtown east side, which have been a very big success. People, instead of coming out to dirty halls with needles and so on, now come out to hot coffee and muffins, I understand. I haven't had the opportunity to go back and visit them since the changes happened. So we contribute to those kinds of things.
[1715]
It's B.C. Housing, the Crown corporation, that actually builds social housing. We have this year doubled the amount of social housing, and we're certainly working with the Cooperative Housing Federation and others to find ways to expand, through working with the private sector, to provide even more social housing if we can. So we're using every available means, because housing costs are the biggest driver of poverty. The biggest problem for people is getting decent, affordable housing. That's why we have prioritized continuing to build social housing in this province.
K. Whittred: I wonder: does this ministry have any input into the Portland Hotel and the Hampton Hotel in the downtown east side?
Hon. J. Pullinger: No, we don't have any input into those two.
K. Whittred: Just a couple of things from the other issue that I have from "Contact." One makes reference to the group that is set up to look into disabilities. I'm just looking here to see what it's being called. It's the task group chaired by Margaret Birrell. I wonder if I could find out what the terms of reference of that task force are and the reporting structure.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I set up that group a while ago to deal with some very complex issues that were of concern to the disability community. It's co-chaired by a member of my staff and Margaret, very ably. There are terms of reference that I can certainly provide the member if she's interested in having them. They're developing a plan, and they will report back to me when that plan is completed. I've also asked them specifically to advise me, to come and meet with me, if their work comes upon some things that we can move on quite quickly. I've asked them to advise me of that, because I would like to make changes quickly where it's possible to do so.
[ Page 12664 ]
K. Whittred: I think that's all from that particular publication.
We're now into the area of just a few items of what I would call odds and ends or potpourri. We keep coming back to this issue of poverty and the fact that the gap is widening. I'm now looking at an article from a magazine which I think even this minister cannot object to. The article from the SPARC publication is entitled "When More is Less," and it points out that between 1989 and 1996 the percentage of children living in poverty has increased fairly dramatically in Canada from 14.4 percent to 21 percent. It doesn't give specific figures for British Columbia, but it suggests that they are certainly comparable.
At the risk of giving the minister an excuse to give the same speech again
[1720]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll be happy to tell the member opposite how
We have tried to reverse those trends in government with some success. The B.C. family bonus, as I say, has closed the poverty gap by 19 percent and 25 percent for families and single parents respectively. Certainly raising the minimum wage closes the gap, as do all of the other things that were put in place to make sure that people have decent jobs at decent wages. We've also worked very hard to try to keep jobs in B.C. with local-hire policies and other such things, which have made a significant impact -- in ridings like mine on the Island Highway -- in terms of decent jobs at decent wages and including non-traditional workers. So the provinces are very, very closely gapped together. We have a few more poor people; we have a few more rich people. That means the gap is a little bit wider here than in some places.
Not so long ago a woman, Armine Yalnizyan, published an extensive report that documents that widening gap -- which I find frightening in terms of, quite frankly, its implications for everything from racism to violence to anger amongst our citizens to marginalization and social alienation, etc. She was writing for the Centre for Social Justice, and what she says is that the rich are enormously richer. In 1973 the wealthiest 10 percent of families with kids under 18 made 21 times more than the poorest 10 percent of families. By 1996 moneyed families made 314 times more than the poorest -- and that's nationwide. She also noted in her report that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing faster in Alberta than in any part of the country and that Alberta has the largest wage gap in Canada, with women earning only 67.5 percent of men's average wage. It has the highest rate of single moms living in poverty -- 71.4 percent -- and more than two-thirds of Alberta's minimum-wage earners are women, many of them single parents.
Basically what she's argued is that the gap is there in this country, and it's widening. Where we've seen taxes flatten and social programs cut the most, it's widening faster. As she says -- this is the newspaper story in the Province -- the fact is that social programs and government transfers of the kind that people like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein detest have in fact prevented even worse inequality. In other words, the argument is that by flattening tax systems, withdrawing social programs, driving down minimum wage and deregulating, what we are doing is opening that gap. Where we're doing that faster, the gap is widening further.
The report also says -- like others, in increasing numbers, are starting to say -- that what the growing gap demonstrates above all is how very effective our tax system and social programs have been in the past in holding the gap to a reasonable level, where we could have a better level of social cohesion and inclusion.
K. Whittred: Well, I anticipated asking some questions about the volunteer draft strategy. However, I think I know what the answers will be. So I will simply ask the question: has the minister received the responses, and when can we expect the draft response?
[1725]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We had an overwhelming number of responses, actually, I'm happy to say. There's certainly a very high level of enthusiasm. We will be putting those responses together and making them into a final report, and we'll release it as soon as we can. I apologize. I can't give the member an absolute date on that. It has actually been a much bigger task than we thought it would be, because there has been so much response. But I will undertake, when we do release it, to provide the member with a copy.
I'd just like to say also
K. Whittred: I have with me a document. This is from Statistics Canada, and it is about the number of volunteers in a variety of provinces. I only did the four western provinces, but of those four, B.C. has the lowest volunteer rate. Manitoba has 40 percent; Saskatchewan has 47 percent; Alberta has 40 percent; and B.C. is at 32 percent. Does the minister have any explanation for that significantly lower rate of participation?
Hon. J. Pullinger: One of the things
[ Page 12665 ]
need it to be. One of the challenges will be for us to help
While it may be the case that historically British Columbians
[1730]
K. Whittred: Yes, it is probably a fair statement -- I do not think it is unfair -- to say that this government probably suffers a credibility problem when it comes to volunteer organizations, probably mostly related to the expropriation of Glacier View Lodge. Therefore I am wondering what strategy the minister has, in her capacity as the first minister responsible for the volunteer sector, to deal with what I think will be a credibility gap in the community.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The members opposite clearly reject the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which said that one of the changes we needed to make was the change we have made in terms of regionalizing health care and all that it entails. I understand that. It's a great place to score political points, and I understand that as well.
But the reality is that the sector and this government have had a terrific relationship over the last year. It would be fair to say that the sector is very enthusiastic about having a place in government and a minister responsible for the sector, for the first time ever. We've had a tremendous working relationship. It's an interesting kind of relationship, because the nature of the sector is such that it's very much an interactive kind of relationship. The sector needs to say how it wants to be supported, which is what we're doing, and we're going to follow that guidance from the sector in terms of how to do that.
That doesn't mean that there won't be problems from time to time. If the member opposite is saying that government should never, ever make changes that affect the third sector -- well, then it would be impossible to govern. The fact is that times change and needs change, and you have to make changes. I'm sure that we can do better in how we make them, but the fact is that those need to be done. Where a voluntary organization or a non-profit is providing a government service that needs to change, then that has to happen. The corollary would be that once you have funded a service, it must remain forever and ever -- you can never change the way you do it. That just simply doesn't work, as I'm sure the member recognizes.
I'm sure that there will be difficulties, but I think that having an ongoing relationship and dialogue in a way that we have never had before -- any government -- will be effective in preventing some of the problems. Some of them can't be; they're just simply differences of opinion. But I think it will serve very much to create a very positive relationship, which is certainly what we have now, between the third sector and government.
K. Whittred: One final question on the volunteer sector. I'm reading from a report called "Making a Difference: Volunteers and Non-Profits," put out by the Canada West Foundation. It discusses the funding of volunteer organizations.
If I may have permission, hon. Chair, to summarize, it makes the point that volunteer organizations, in order to be successful, are sometimes not free. In fact, most organizations require a volunteer coordinator of some sort in order to fulfil their mandate. It further goes on to suggest that when governments cut back, frequently the first to be cut is the funding which would in fact fund a volunteer coordinator. I'm thinking of the situation in this province of the mandated 1.5 percent clawback through the Ministry for Children and Families. I know it's a different ministry, but that clawback is apt to affect and trickle through the system to all the various volunteer organizations. I'm wondering what strategy the minister has, in her capacity as minister responsible, to deal with that.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I think there are two points there. One is that yes, it's
necessary. We've absorbed a $2.5 billion deficit that we inherited; we've absorbed another
$2.5 billion of federal cuts, or thereabouts, plus numerous programs
[1735]
When you cut, programs are affected -- period. Whether it's a direct government service or it's delivered at arm's length through the community sector, it's the same thing. You do disrupt it, and that's just a fact of life. You also disrupt people's lives when you cut the direct government sector. So it's an unfortunate fact of life, and one simply has to try to do that. I'm speaking in general terms, because I would advise the member that she ought to ask the direct question to the Minister for Children and Families. You just simply have to do it in the best way that you can, but to suggest that government should never make changes if they affect the voluntary sector is -- I'm sure they would agree -- not reasonable or practical.
The other piece around Canada West and the discussion around coordinators
The sector, essentially, is saying to me that they don't
[ Page 12666 ]
funding base, from a variety of different sources, which they feel is much more stable. I think they're correct in that.
V. Anderson: I would agree basically with the minister's last comment. Having worked with parliamentary organizations all my life, through many kinds of government, it was always true that if you wanted to be independent, you had to be independent. For one reason or another, because of changes in new programs and new priorities, if you depended primarily on government, subsidiary funding was fine. But you had to be self-sufficient, or else you would eventually get cut by somebody someplace down the road. So that's a basic comment.
I want to go back to one issue that we've discussed over the years and whether you can
give me
Hon. J. Pullinger: The total number of appeals received by the board last calendar year -- in the calendar year 1998 -- was 357, a very small number. It is roughly 60-40 initiated by MHR and clients. It's roughly 60 percent by the ministry -- just under 60 percent by the ministry -- and just over 40 percent by clients. The conclusions were just over half, or 54 percent, in favour of clients and 31 percent in favour of the ministry, with 5 percent filed late or dismissed and partial decisions in 4 percent of the cases.
V. Anderson: The other question was the cost of the tribunal system and the appeal board system, because there are now costs for both the tribunals and the appeal boards.
[1740]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The tribunal cost is essentially $144,000 for training and approximately $250,000 for tribunal payments to people who participate. The appeal board, in this budget, is $502,000 for the year.
The member is likely aware but I would just like to point out that, in the past, people had to go from tribunal to court, which was of course not possible for most. So what we've tried to do is introduce a mechanism that was more accessible and not costly to the client in order to get a more formal ruling on their concern. That's why it's there.
V. Anderson: How many of these have actually still gone to court? Have any gone
to court as a result of
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's just a tiny number, just a handful. I don't have the exact number here, but it's just a tiny number. I understand the number is decreasing -- dramatically, I'm told -- as, I would imagine, the appeal board becomes more effective.
V. Anderson: One other area. What is the process, and how many are you aware of, where trusts have been set up for people with disabilities or mental disabilities by families and others to care for them? That's a fairly new process. What is the process? How is it working, and what support for people trying to do this?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member's correct that this is relatively new. We have provided for a trust of up to $100,000, which is obviously an asset that belongs to that individual, to recognize the fact that an individual with a disability may need additional funding throughout her or his lifetime to basically deal with disability-related costs -- things such as medical supplies, aids, mobility devices, renovations of their residence. There are a number of things of that nature. Just in recognition of those additional costs, this is a mechanism for them to have and hold a larger asset. They can use $5,484 annually for those things, which obviously augments their lifestyle in a very positive way.
We work with community groups to let people know that it's available and help them set
up the trust. As of February this year there were 58 people with a trust, so that's a
significant number coming on stream. We think there'd be
[1745]
The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and please note the time.
K. Whittred: Thank you, hon. Chair. It was my intent to wind up our discussion.
I would just like to conclude our interchange this afternoon by expressing some disappointment. I came in this afternoon hoping that we could have a reasonable discussion around some of the very far-reaching and important issues that face this ministry, with some sort of appreciation that both sides of the House are in fact interested and concerned about these issues. I feel that this has not been as I anticipated.
When I planned for these estimates, I tried to do so following the guidance given to this House by the auditor general, who suggested that we try and evaluate ministries on the basis of their strategic plans, avoiding too much detail and so on about specific things. My colleague and I did attempt to do that, and I feel that we have been subjected to a tirade of a single speech that was given over and over again. I think the record will show that the same speech was given at least four or five -- perhaps more -- times. I will not comment on that any further. I want my disapproval and my unhappiness about the way that this particular session has gone on the record. That will conclude the estimates for this ministry.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm certainly sorry that the member is not able to deal with a difference of opinion, which clearly there is on the two sides of the House. Just let the record state that I'm certainly wide open. At the beginning of the estimates the member said very clearly that she was served well by my office and my staff, and certainly we're wide open to questions anytime, including now. So I'd like to thank the member for her questions and simply say that the standard good relationship between her and my office is certainly wide open.
[ Page 12667 ]
When there are real, factual questions, we're more than happy to answer.
With that, hon. Chair, and noting the time, I would like to move
The Chair: Shall vote 38 pass?
Vote 38 approved.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I move the committee rise and report resolution of the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada