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.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999

Volume 15, Number 22

[ Page 13363 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. C. Evans: As all members will know, it's the second annual Agriculture Day here at the Legislature, and quite a few members have introductions to make.

I'd just like to introduce a few of the directors that I've had the good fortune to meet with in the last 24 hours: Bruce Bakker, the brand-new chair of the B.C. Ag Council, and Marcus Janzen, the assistant chair; Russell Husch, the outgoing past chair, who organized the first B.C. Ag Day; Margaret Speitelsbach of the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board; and Judy Galey of the Island vegetable producers. Will the House please make them welcome. They're up here, up there -- everywhere above you.

B. Barisoff: I too would like to introduce all the members from the agriculture community that came to Victoria today. On behalf of this side of the House, I'd like to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to have in the members' gallery some special visitors from the Russian Federation. Seven senior officials from federal and state taxation agencies in Russia are in Victoria, after visiting Ottawa and Saskatchewan, to learn more about federal, provincial and municipal tax systems. The sponsoring program, called the Yeltsin Democracy Fellowship, is funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. I would very much ask everyone to join with me in welcoming our special guests.

[1410]

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Hogg: I've just spoken with the mayor of White Rock and wanted to introduce to this House some of the matters taking place there. Between seven and 11 this morning in Surrey-White Rock, 70 millimetres of rain and over eight centimetres of hail fell. The full GVRD average is some 45 millimetres in the month of June. So we almost doubled that in a four-hour period. At 10:35 a.m., the mayor declared a state of emergency. Homes and businesses in the Marine Drive area -- some of them -- are under five feet of water. The sewage system is backed up. Surrey and White Rock public works departments are managing things as best they can. The provincial emergency program people are on site and are recommending that it be declared a provincial emergency site. I hope that the House will wish all the citizens of the Surrey-White Rock area the best in this most difficult time for them.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for bringing that to our attention.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With the agriculture delegation is Harold Starr, who is president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. He's from the Miocene area, east of 150 Mile House. Please welcome him.

I would also like to introduce 27 students and their teacher from the Cariboo Christian School in 100 Mile House, who are in the precincts today. Please welcome them.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Ms. Oye from St. Joseph's School in the Premier's riding. With her are 26 grade 7 students and several adults. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

M. de Jong: A good number of the people at the B.C. Ag Council call the constituency of Matsqui home: a father-and-son team, Dan and Dion Wiebe, with the B.C. Turkey Association and the B.C. Broiler Hatching Egg Commission; Walter Seimens and Harv Janzen with the B.C. Egg Producers Association; Ray Nickel from the B.C. Turkey Association; and a good friend of mine, Jatinder Sidhu, with the B.C. Horticultural Coalition. I hope the House will make all these people welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: In honour of Agriculture Day, visiting us from Princeton is Mr. Ernie Willis. Ernie is a director of the B.C. Agriculture Council and vice-president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Would the House please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: I join all those who are giving welcome to the people representing the agricultural community -- in particular Jeff Hicks, who's chair of the B.C. Horticultural Coalition and a constituent of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Please make him welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just noticed, peeking around the corner from the cheap seats in the gallery, my brother Dave Collins and a guest. I see he turned up late and got one of the bad seats. I just want to ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I also have the pleasure today to introduce a number of members from the agricultural community in the Cowichan Valley. Don Gedelman is here from Lake Cowichan. He's president of the Association of Fairs and Exhibitions. Wally Smith from Chemainus is president of the B.C. Milk Producers Association. Dave Wiebe is from Duncan. He's with FARM Community Council and a member of the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. And Ben Voike of Ladysmith is with the B.C. Egg Producers Association. I ask all members of the House to help make my constituents very welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the gallery today is Mr. Duncan MacRae. Mr. MacRae is president of Skills Canada - British Columbia. He just led a contingent of 61 British Columbia students to the Canadian Skills competition in Ontario, where they competed in fields as diverse as auto services, cabinet-making, computer animation and desktop publishing, to name a few. As Minister of Education, I'm particularly pleased to say that of the 61 contestants, 27 were medal-winners, and two were national winners, who will go on to the international skills competition in Montreal this November. So would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. MacRae and in congratulating our 61 students, particularly our 27 medal-winners.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to welcome four constituents from the Shuswap here today on Agriculture Day. They represent four different areas in agricultural commodities, and they represent four different areas in the Shuswap. They are John Schut, Jacob Penner, Wally Yonkman and Bruce Cook. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 13364 ]

[1415]

M. Coell: I'd like to introduce two friends of mine who are here today and who happen to be here for Agriculture Day: Dave Pendray from Pendray Farms and Judy Galey from Galey farms. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to also welcome, on Agriculture Day, Mike Wallis from the Associated Ginseng Growers of B.C., from the Kamloops area. At this time I'd also like to introduce Mr. Gordon Cumming's grades 6 and 7 class from Beattie Elementary School, who were in the precincts earlier today. Would the House please make all these visitors welcome.

E. Gillespie: Members of this House should know that agriculture in the Comox Valley produces among the greatest variety of agricultural products in the province. I had the opportunity to meet with a group of representatives today -- including a constituent, Jeff Hamilton -- with the Cranberry Marketing Board. On Agriculture Day I would also like to introduce in this House Niels Holbek from my constituency -- a director of the B.C. Agriculture Council and also a director of the FARM Community Council. Would all members please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: I too would like to take this opportunity to welcome Harold Starr here. He is not only the president of the BCCA, but he is also a constituent of mine, and on top of that, he's been a longtime good and faithful friend. So I ask the House to make him welcome.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the House Jennifer Dyson, who is with the B.C. Horticultural Coalition and is the Island Farmers Alliance representative. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

C. Clark: Delphine Charmley, B.C.'s most active foster parent advocate, is with us today. I hope the House will make her welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today, along with the delegation of individuals with the agriculture industry, is Ms. Sandra Martin. Ms. Martin is a resident of Metchosin in my constituency. She is active in agricultural matters in the riding and also on a provincial basis -- as well as formerly a councillor in the community of Metchosin. Would all members please give her a warm welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'd like to welcome all of the farmers to the Legislature today, but in particular, I want to mention Bob Friesen, who is a farmer from Manitoba. He's the incoming president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

G. Janssen: It gives me great pride today to welcome Lyle Price, a resident of the beautiful Alberni Valley, chair of the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission, supporter and promoter of Lockwood village on Mount Arrowsmith -- the next Whistler Village -- and most importantly, a fellow motorcycle enthusiast.

E. Conroy: Would the House please welcome a cattle cohort of mine that I've dealt with for a number of years, Patrick Heustis.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. The purpose of this bill is to continue the streamlining initiative which was introduced and announced in the 1998 budget. This is the 1999 initiative. This initiative was designed to create ways of increasing government efficiency and responsiveness as well as reducing the regulatory burden on business.

The provisions in this legislation represent a further step towards achieving the objective of streamlining government. The act makes amendments in the following statutes, all of which are within the purview of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations: Community Financial Services Act; Corporation Capital Tax Act; Financial Institutions Act; Hotel Room Tax Act; Insurance Premium Tax Act; Land Title Tax Act; Logging Tax Act; Mining Tax Act; Motor Fuel Tax Act; Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act; Partnership Act; Property Transfer Tax Act; Purchasing Commission Act; Real Estate Act; Social Service Tax Act; Society Act; Taxation (Rural Area) Act; and, finally, Tobacco Tax Act.

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of the bill. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 71 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.

[1420]

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[ Page 13365 ]

A significant portion of the water licences in British Columbia are for domestic or small agricultural purposes. These uses, however, represent a very small fraction of the total volume of water that is licensed. While water availability and other local conditions can vary throughout the province, domestic and small agricultural water licence applications are generally not controversial or complicated. They tend to have a minimal impact on the province's water resources.

Therefore in these instances applications may not warrant the lengthy technical analysis and review currently required by legislation. A streamlined water licensing process will assist some small businesses needing access to small quantities of water. For example, it should allow a plan to build or expand greenhouses or nurseries. It will encourage the development of private properties, and it will generate economic benefits for local communities. Streamlining the licensing process for low-volume users will also allow us to devote more time to water protection measures such as water use planning. And it will result in faster service to all applicants and licence holders.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members know that ministers have two minutes to make their introductions.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 72 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.

Oral Questions

COST OF CANCELLED HEART SURGERY TO CONSTITUENT AND FAMILY

Will the Minister of Health tell us why the health care system has failed Frank Annis and his family? They had to spend almost $1,000, only to find out that his surgery was cancelled.

[1425]

Generally, there are travel assistance plans for patients who are travelling in the province -- who need to come down to Vancouver or other places for surgery. Indeed, that's the very reason that we have increased the number of cardiac surgeries: because we know that there are people waiting, and we don't want to see those cancellations.

About that particular patient, if the member gives me that information, I'll check on it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Cariboo North.

J. Wilson: I already notified the minister of this a few days ago.

However, two months went by. Mr. Annis reached critical condition, and he had to be flown by air ambulance again. This time he did not recover from surgery. He died. Now, in addition to the funeral costs, the family has been hit with a $500 bill for the air ambulance service.

Will the Minister of Health tell us how she can justify billing Mr. Annis's family when it is her health care system that has failed him every step of the way?

Hon. P. Priddy: There certainly are circumstances where exceptions are made. If the member has recently contacted the ministry or contacted my office, then I will follow through and see if anything can be done about that.

TRAVEL POINTS PLAN FOR AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry -- through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: Then he got so sick, hon. Speaker, that he had to be flown by air ambulance back down to Vancouver. But by then, it was too late, and he died. Finally, you victimized the family further. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: . . .by -- through the Chair -- sending a $500 ambulance bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Neufeld: Will the Health minister have the decency to cancel the air ambulance bill that was sent to the Annis family?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[ Page 13366 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: For six years I have been attempting to get the government of the day to respond to a process that I put forward to Health minister after Health minister after Health minister: to start utilizing travel points when government people fly around the province of British Columbia and donate those points to a charity. This could have saved this family a huge amount of money, but this minister and this government have neglected to even look at it in a serious way. Will this minister stand in this House today and say: "Yes, we will adopt that plan; we will adopt that plan today. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

R. Neufeld: . . .and put it in place to further help other people from rural B.C. that need health care"?

[1430]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Minister of Health has been recognized. Member for Peace River North, come to order.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member and, as well, the member for Peace River South have brought this proposal forward -- they're quite right -- for the last number of years. We have not been able to find a way. As a matter of fact, the member wrote to me again recently. I had new staff meet with the Ministry of Finance to see if there was any way at all -- and they're looking again -- to be able to accrue personal points which we don't normally accrue and transfer those back into travel for patients. We have not yet found any legal way to be able to do that, hon. Speaker. If I could, I would do it tomorrow. We're still working on it. But there's no way at this stage, I've been advised, that we're able to do it legally.

EFFECT OF NEW GOVERNMENT FORM ON PHARMACY BUSINESSES

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, it's more.

The document has gone from one page, which is what it was in 1973 when it was first written 26 years ago -- you're quite right -- to one that is 20 pages, because there is a lot more to describe in terms of current policy and practice. But in suggesting that there was less than a month's notice. . . .

Our ministry did consult extensively with the B.C. Pharmacy Association, who then published an article saying: "Overall, the B.C. Pharmacy Association is satisfied with the result of many years of development; the new agreement generally reflects current policies and practices and pharmacists should not experience any significant negative impacts. Work on details in wording has resulted in a more clear agreement that is less open to negative interpretation." This is their article from their journal.

It is, after all. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .a half-billion-dollar budget that Pharmacare has, hon. Speaker. Certainly it deserves a contract that is clear for the government. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .for taxpayers and for the pharmacists.

The Speaker: First supplementary. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The Chair will not recognize the next questioner until the chamber comes to order. The Minister for Northern Development will come to order.

C. Hansen: The B.C. Pharmacy Association did participate in discussions leading up to this document. They did see language that they approved of. But the final document that was circulated to pharmacists for agreement has been shoved down their throats.

The ministry did not listen to the constructive inputs that came from pharmacists around this province. This minister has been receiving dozens and dozens of letters from pharmacists around this province; I've been copied on those letters. They are telling her that under this new agreement. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Hansen: . . .that they are being forced to sign, they will be put out of business. Will the minister stand up and

[ Page 13367 ]

[1435]

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I don't know how much it changed. But this document was written close to the end of May, saying that they support the agreement. It did not change between the end of May and a week ago. On the other hand, in terms of an extension, I already agreed with the pharmacists last Friday that if they asked for a extension -- which I expect them to do at their board meeting today -- I would do it.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

C. Hansen: Yesterday I raised this issue in the Small Business estimates. The Minister of Small Business said this: "I'm taking up those concerns now with the Ministry of Health and reminding the Ministry of Health that we're now to look at agreements and regulation through a business lens, which the government has adopted. . . ." We're getting a better sense of what this business lens is all about. It's a telescope, and they're looking at it through the wrong end.

My question to the minister is: why was this agreement not put through the business lens?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We've got to hear the question.

C. Hansen: Secondly, will the minister make a commitment today to the small independent pharmacies from around this province that when she gets that request for an extension, she will grant it and engage in some meaningful discussions with pharmacists?

Hon. P. Priddy: I welcome the participation of my colleague the Minister of Small Business, should he wish to come and participate in the agreement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have already stated to members of the pharmacy profession that I would agree to an extension. I did that last Friday. I will do that if that request. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .comes forward. So far, as a matter of interest, there has actually been no. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .request from the B.C. Pharmacy Association for an extension. I would expect that from their board meeting today, and I will grant that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES AND GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would be happy to sit down with the member opposite and analyze the nature of the mortgage foreclosures. There's no question that in certain areas of our province. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .where we've been in a recession, there have been mortgage foreclosures based on the economy. Certainly I would also surmise that in the area I represent and in the lower mainland, some mortgage foreclosures have flowed because of the leaky-condo crisis. There's no question about that. Our government has taken concise, strong action on the leaky-condo crisis, against every wish of the members opposite. We have taken concerted action to put more money in the pockets of British Columbia families each and every day. The members opposite would stand up here and quote statistics from last year and not in any way recognize the turnaround of the statistics that are occurring in the first quarter of this year. The predictions for housing starts are on the rise here. Our government is working with the housing industry on housing initiatives. We're not resting in the statistical doom and gloom of the opposition. We're getting down into the community, resolving crises of the past and moving forward on policies to stimulate the economy of the future.

[1440]

F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 13368 ]

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 38 grade 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School in Burnaby-Edmonds. With them is their teacher, Carol Taylor, along with a number of adults. They are here for a tour and some history of government. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Ministerial Statement

AGRICULTURE DAY

Much of this record of expansion is due to the climate of cooperation between the commodity groups here today that created and sustain the B.C. Agriculture Council. Under the leadership of Russell Husch, last year they invented Agriculture Day, and they were the first sector ever to approach the Economic Council of Ministers to make a presentation. In the last couple of years they asked for short-term change on a broad number of fronts.

A short list would include a complete revamping of crop insurance -- done except for vegetables; the invention of an income disaster program -- we not only did it but delivered it in 1998, and then all of Canada signed on and doubled the funds in 1999; streamlining labour and environmental regulations and the creation of peer committees -- done or in progress; the return of weed control and increased grazing enhancement and secure sterile insect release funding -- done; the creation of a trust fund to hold crop insurance surpluses in good years -- done in this year's budget.

They asked us to make the right-to-farm legislation work on the urban fringe -- done for mushrooms, in progress for greenhouses. They asked us to expand Buy B.C. -- this year we added $1 million to the Buy B.C. budget. They asked us for tax relief, and we created exemptions for greenhouse equipment. We cut the corporate capital tax and small business tax for something like 3,000 farmers and small processors, and we cut the fuel tax by $3 million.

The list of short-term accomplishments goes on and on, but these truly are just signposts along the way. Is it working? I would submit that it is. In spite of commodity price collapse around the world and what that did to hogs, grain and apples last year, and while Canada's farm export values dropped by 7 percent, B.C.'s diversified industry grew by 21 percent last year. According to StatsCan, we are the only province west of Quebec where farmers did better in 1998 than in 1997, with a 17 percent increase in net farm income -- the best growth record in Canada.

[1445]

What the producers need to know and what the agrifood policy process needs to answer is: what do we really want this industry to look like five, ten, 15 or 20 years from now? They know that we've protected the land base and passed right-to-farm legislation. But what they do not know is this: what is our collective vision about what we want them to do on that land? Will we agree to buy the production of that land in the marketplace? If it is produced with environmental excellence and fair labour practices, if it's wholesome food, if they do not behave like the Cargill company in grain or Maple Leaf Foods in beef processing, or the Tyson corporation down south in poultry. . . . In other words, if they behave with business excellence, environmental excellence and labour excellence, what price will we the consumers pay for the superior food that they produce?

Do we want the best practices on the land? At the same time, as a society, do we want Chinese prices for apples, Alabama prices for poultry or Mexicali costs for vegetables? Or are we now finally ready as a society to commit that if they grow, process and market what we want to buy, with the standards that we want to expect on the land that we ask them to sustain, then we will pay the premium price that such a product deserves?

Maybe you could call this the post-GATT social contract, or maybe you could call it an agrifood policy. Either way, I submit that it's the prerequisite next step if we're going to expect this industry to continue to invest and prosper in this province for another 100 years.

Sure, making environmental standards work for farming is my job. Labour standards and on-farm marketing, and fixing crop insurance and whole farm, and lowering taxes and helping the industry to diversify and organize -- all of these are my job and our job. I submit that we've made more progress on these issues in the last two years than we did in the previous ten. But we have a way, way bigger and way more exciting job to do now. It belongs to all of us in society and in this House, and that is the work that we've assigned to the select standing committee -- to lay out a blueprint for the future that we can believe in, invest in, vote for, defend and pay for in the marketplace.

By this day next year, I hope that ministers and municipalities and commodity groups and environmentalists and

[ Page 13369 ]

B. Barisoff: Hon. speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the minister's remarks in honour of Agriculture Day. There's no doubt that the second-most-important industry in B.C. should command our attention and our commitment.

[1450]

Even though the overall budget for this year has increased by $890 million, the agriculture budget has been decreased by $6 million. This makes it extremely difficult in some areas to respond to the plight of our farmers. Whether it's the turkey grower, the berry grower in the Fraser Valley, the fruit grower in the Okanagan or the weaner cattle farmers in the north, there are a number of common denominators that affect the agriculture industry.

The minister has initiated an active Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I'm not only happy to serve on that committee, but I thank the minister for taking the step. What's even more important in this process is that we not only listen to those involved in agriculture -- the agriculture industry -- but that we're prepared to make whatever changes are necessary. Every British Columbian should be made aware of the challenges facing farmers and food producers in this province. Consumers also need to share in this responsibility.

The minister has said on many occasions that the solutions to the issues have to come from the producers themselves. In this rapidly changing global market, I agree that a team approach is needed. I believe that the government has a role to play. The role should be to facilitate growth and development, not hinder progress in any way.

There needs to be a long-term strategy. There need to be lower taxes and less regulation and red tape. The industry will only be competitive in a global market if we can establish programs and initiatives that work. For example, we have a financial safety net that needs repairs. There are a few areas that are not working. For the fruit farmers, as an example, crop insurance is going to have to be revisited. It needs to be fair and affordable for the taxpayer, but it also needs to work when the need is there. And it needs to work in a timely and efficient way. But a financial safety net is a critical component if we are going to sustain agriculture in this province.

When the agricultural land reserve was established, the mandate not only included preserving agricultural land but an offer of real support to the farmer in the process. If we are going to tie the farmer to his land, then we need to be sure that the processes are in place to offer support to the farmer through incentives, tax reduction, flexible labour laws, etc. At the end of the day, we won't have a sustainable agricultural land reserve without ultimately supporting agriculture. I don't believe that means we have to reduce standards of excellence, that we have to give handouts or reward poor performance. I'm confident that we have enough resources and examples in other areas to draw from that we can create a made-in-B.C. agriculture policy that works for us.

The minister has promised to fight back, and I hope he will. I hope that we can take the steps to stop the hemorrhaging of hundreds and hundreds of jobs that are being lost in the agrifood industry. This is largely an issue of supply management, regulations, taxes and labour laws.

In closing my remarks, I would like to say that I am pleased that we have Agriculture Day in B.C. I believe that every one of us needs to be more aware of the value of food production. The idea that we can feed ourselves and produce export food and related products is exciting and worthwhile.

We have some of the cheapest food in the world. When we line up at the supermarkets to buy produce, we don't often think about what the farmer is getting down the line. I'm afraid that some may be paying too great a price on our behalf. I sincerely hope that we will all work together to improve the circumstances for farmers and food producers in this province. I hope that the government will form part of the solution and not the problem. The issues are not going away. I believe that if all of us work together, right from government to consumers, we can find workable solutions, ones that will promote and sustain agriculture in British Columbia.

[1455]

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I think, first of all, that if we're going to have a successful agriculture industry in this province, it's got to be competitive. It's got to be competitive continentally, and it's got to be competitive in a world market. I respect the minister's wish that consumers would pay a premium for British Columbia products because of the way they're produced or because of the input costs that are there for local farmers. The reality is that consumers shop for price in the supermarket. The minister knows it, and every thinking British Columbian knows it.

The challenge for the government is to find a cost structure for agriculture and for all of our other primary industries that allows us to be competitive. That doesn't mean Third World wages. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that there should be substandard environmental practices. What it does mean is that there be an economic environment in the province that allows our agriculture industry to compete. If, for example, Peace River grain farmers were to hope that British Columbians, out of respect for the way that grain is produced in the Peace, should buy their grain at a premium, it would be a rather pitiful wish. British Columbians consume only a tiny fraction of the grain produced in this province. It's an export product. So is our cattle industry, and so, I suspect, are many of our other agriculture industries.

World transportation is such that products arrive seasonally from around the world. We see strawberries from Mexico, we see strawberries from California, and at the appropriate time we see strawberries from British Columbia. But to

[ Page 13370 ]

So I say to the minister -- and I know that he's sincere in wanting to help the industry -- that we've got to find a way to make our agriculture industry more competitive. We've got to find a way to deal with the environmental concerns, with the Workers Compensation concerns and with the taxation concerns. Our farmers are dying a death of a thousand cuts, and many of those cuts are being inflicted by government. I say to the minister, and to the people across the way, that there's a challenge there that is simply more than a patriotic call to British Columbia consumers.

Orders of the Day

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(continued)

[1500]

J. Wilson: I'd like to recapitulate a bit here. Before we broke, the minister referred to habituated animals. To me, this is a newly coined phrase of some kind. Could the minister explain what habituated actually means?

Hon. C. McGregor: When I was speaking about habituated wildlife, I was speaking about those wildlife that have become habituated, in particular, to garbage; but it can be other food sources in an urban setting.

J. Wilson: So habituated means they like garbage. So it doesn't matter what area they reside in; as long as they like garbage, they are now habituated. But I seem to recall that the reason that these two canine species were added to the list here was because they could become habituated and that makes them a danger to people. The reason they're on the list is because they are habituated. Now, just because they like garbage, to me, doesn't really say that they should be on that list. Maybe the minister can clarify this point, because equating habituated with dangerous is what I hear, but yet I don't think that's what the meaning of this is.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, hon. member, I've tried repeatedly to explain this issue to you, and let me try again. When wildlife are fed -- intentionally fed -- by people, they become habituated. They pose a danger and a public safety issue to the broad public when that habituation occurs. When we have bears habituated into neighbourhoods, then we have a conflict between people who live in that neighbourhood and that bear, which is a wild animal. Those same situations can arise with coyotes and wolves. That is the reason why we have designated them as dangerous wildlife.

J. Wilson: The minister has designated coyotes and wolves as dangerous wildlife, even though at this point in time they are not dangerous to the public. The possibility is there; they could, at one point down the road, maybe. . . . We never know. It could be a year or two years; it could be ten years from now, when we might actually, someday, witness a coyote attack or a wolf attack where someone is injured or killed. But this hasn't happened, and it's very, very unlikely to happen. So why are we dealing with a whole lot of species here as dangerous to the public simply because they are attracted to garbage? I'm not referring to the deliberate feeding of these things. I am talking about attractants here that could bring animals around. So to add these other species on here. . . . If, as the minister has referred to several times, this bill is only intended to control bear problems in areas where people live, then we should be dealing specifically with bears and not adding some other species that really isn't a danger to people -- and is only going to become a danger to people because the government feels that it would like to promote that idea.

[1505]

J. Wilson: Before we broke this morning, I believe the minister made the statement, which she just made, that they don't want people feeding dangerous wildlife. However, I would like to ask the minister: is there any problem with people feeding wildlife that is not considered to be habituated and a threat to human safety?

Hon. C. McGregor: I have heard of people feeding wildlife other than cougars, bears, wolves and coyotes. In fact, I've seen evidence that people feed mice, birds and other species, both wild and more domesticated types of species. However, that's not what this bill is about. What we're trying to do is identify wildlife that could become dangerous to the public if they are intentionally fed or attracted to sources of food, because it endangers pubic safety.

J. Wilson: I believe that's what "dangerous wildlife" under section 1(a) is for: "a species of wildlife that is prescribed as dangerous wildlife." Is that what's happening here? Have you left a window to add in any other species out there that could become habituated?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes -- as I indicated to the member before lunch. He was concerned that badgers, for instance, should be considered dangerous wildlife. I gave him my assurance that if we had a variety of reported events related to badgers, through intentional feeding, we would add them to the bill under regulation.

J. Wilson: It's nice to know that we could become threatened by badgers too, but raccoons and foxes are some more of them. Has the minister ever considered the danger involved, say, with a newborn baby if it were outside and at the mercy of a bald eagle? Has the minister considered the fact that an eagle could be an actual danger to a very small infant? I'm sure that if she had a little granddaughter that was a few months old, she would be very reluctant to allow it to walk around unattended in the presence of an eagle, if there was one there. Has the minister considered anything like this?

[ Page 13371 ]

J. Wilson: I'd like to go down to section 1(b) here and get a bit of clarification. Under the act, in the definition section, it defines a conservation officer or a deputy conservation officer as one and the same. I would like to know -- but in this amendment I do not see -- under the section definition, the term "deputy conservation officer" added in. I'm wondering if "conservation officer" refers to a conservation officer and a deputy conservation officer all in the same thing.

[1510]

J. Wilson: Then if there is no change, is a deputy conservation officer someone who is specifically appointed by the ministry? Or is it a broad term to include any police officer or any police force within the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 23 of this bill deals specifically with how deputy conservation officers are appointed. Under the current act, there is reference to how the minister can appoint a deputy conservation officer.

M. Coell: With regard to the definition of resident, in (b)(ii) it says someone who "has resided in British Columbia for the 12 month period immediately before making an application." It strikes me -- and the minister may correct me; I don't know whether this is in tandem with federal legislation -- that you can be on the voters list in six months. Why would it be 12 months for you to get a licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand by staff that this is a parallel provision to what already exists in Alberta and Ontario. In fact, the 12-month provision applies only to non-Canadian citizens. If you are a Canadian citizen, then "resident" is under the second part of the definition, which is seven out of 12 months -- and that's to establish a majority of the year.

J. Wilson: Then if this applies to a non-Canadian citizen, if you are a Canadian citizen and you move into the province of British Columbia, can you apply for a licence after six months, when you can now put your name on the voters list? Or must you wait another month?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, you must wait another month. You have to wait until the seventh month.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: The term "resources" is used in this amendment, which will apparently clarify the intent of subsection 4(4) of the act by providing: "Despite any other enactment, a person may not use land or resources in a wildlife management area without the written permission of the regional manager." I can't find a definition for resources in the act, so I want to ask the minister what she thinks is encompassed within that term. My reading of it is that it could be so broad as to include something like picking berries, which would pretty much mean that a wildlife management area would be off limits to anybody for almost any purpose unless they had the written permission of the regional manager.

[1515]

G. Plant: The minister helpfully gave a list of examples. It occurs to me, in trying to find a connecting link in the examples, that we're really talking about a very, very broad range of things.

Hon. C. McGregor: This parallels the existing language in the current Wildlife Act. It is broad in range and is deliberately designed to be that way. That's so that we can manage for a variety of issues once an area has been declared a wildlife management area. The purpose of declaring it a wildlife management area is to manage for wildlife resources. We want to give ourselves as much opportunity as possible to be able to review decisions on how that land is used once the designation has gone forward.

J. Wilson: The wording here is: "Despite any other enactment. . . ." I believe it's not the same language. I think that there is a change here, because in the act as it was, the regional manager, on agreement. . . . There are other uses that have been going on in some of these wildlife management areas for some time, and usually it has been through the cooperation of, say, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Mines. They would look at these things and reach a consensus-type agreement that yes, this use is not going to affect the wildlife values in there. What I get from this is that "despite any other enactment" means to me that anything that has been agreed to previously now falls under the jurisdiction of the regional manager, and without his written approval, it's not going to happen.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me give the member assurance that under section 4(3), it makes it clear that the designation of land under section 4(2) does not affect any rights granted before the designation.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Coell: Section 3, I hope, is something that is positive. The striking out of "except as authorized" and the substituting of "except as permitted" -- is that going to make it easier or more difficult for people to achieve licences?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's designed to be neutral. It's moving from the term "authorized" to "permitted." It's to reflect the previous amendment made under section 4(4).

[ Page 13372 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand that legislative counsel believes that the word "permitted" is more correct, so they would like us to use that word in the act.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: Is there a public policy reason why the exemption that is being amended here is limited to primary residences?

[1520]

G. Plant: It just occurred to me that many people who have firearms for hunting and recreational purposes and who own a second property -- a summer cottage or something like that -- are going to actually find this exemption not terribly helpful. The gun is going to be at the summer cottage, not at the main house in town. I understand the minister's answer, but it still seems to me that it doesn't quite completely answer the question.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I guess you could say that somebody who's moving from one cottage to another cottage will not be captured by this amendment. But I would argue that it doesn't happen very often, and they would have to get a licence in the same way as anyone else when they want to transport their firearms.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister can. . . . This is the area that I think, if anything, you had some rather bad press on with regard to the feeding of animals and the fines associated with them. I wonder if you would like to address that area just briefly and clarify your position.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, I would argue the opposite. We've had extremely good press on this issue. In fact, it's been covered all over the province -- in the Kootenays, in the central interior and in northern British Columbia. We've had editorials and other things talking about the measures that this is designed to put forward in order to give conservation officers another tool in their repertoire of management strategies to deal with dangerous wildlife and the feeding of dangerous wildlife. So I would argue that -- despite one editorial that talked about picnic baskets, which clearly would not be covered under the provisions of feeding dangerous wildlife -- we've largely had very good press. It is because we've had a strong experience in British Columbia, particularly around bear management.

This is something that, in fact, has been out in the communities for more than a year, with communities pressing, really, for us to move forward with these amendments to the Wildlife Act in order to bring forward new strategies to deal with, potentially, the creation of problem wildlife.

M. Coell: Just to save some time, I would be interested if the minister could inform me later, through a letter or something, what kind of communication she's going to do. I'm specifically thinking of the tourist industry and those people who are coming to use our provincial parks, and how she is going to get the message out to them without it appearing that they're going to be fined huge amounts of money, which I don't think is the case. The minister can get back to me on that.

[1525]

We want to use this largely as an education tool, but in the eventuality where we have a problem and can't convince the person to take certain measures to protect against the attraction of dangerous wildlife, then we have the ability to issue tickets. Clearly we want to take the education steps first. This is something our parks officers do on a regular basis -- talking with the public generally about the possibility of their interaction with various forms of wildlife and the kinds of safety measures that need to be put in place to protect themselves and their families. Of course, this is a very important part of making sure we have a well-informed public when they are out using B.C. parks and other Crown lands around the province.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

G. Plant: The first part of section 17 re-enacts section 84, which is the fines and penalties section. We were earlier talking about the offence of feeding dangerous wildlife, which is section 10 of this bill, but it's going to become section 33.1 of the act. I just want to be sure that I'm reading the provision we have in front of us now.

Someone who happens to be convicted of the offence of having intentionally attracted dangerous wildlife by leaving some food somewhere is potentially liable on a first conviction to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, plus all of the additional remedies included in or provided for in section 84.1 as creative sentencing and in section 84.3 as additional fines. Is that the potential exposure of the person who should be so unfortunate as to have their intentions misconstrued in relation to leaving a couple of loaves of bread somewhere?

[ Page 13373 ]

The member generally describes what measures are available if a person were unfortunate enough to find themselves in court as a result of a grievous offence -- I think those are the words that I've been given here -- related to intentional feeding of wildlife. The range of fines is between zero and $50,000. Clearly it's the court that makes that determination.

G. Plant: The range of zero to $50,000, the six months and the other items that I referred to are all, according to the law, available to the sentencing judge on a first offence. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct.

[1530]

But I guess I have this additional problem. If it turns out that the judges have a problem with their sentencing range here, and the sentences, in the fullness of time, are actually a whole lot more reasonable and modest, then I wonder if the effect of all this at the end of the day will be to bring the whole administration of law in this area into disrepute. So it seems to me that there are a couple of problems with the approach taken here, and I'd be interested in the minister's comments on them.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, to begin with, I'll just note the contradictions I hear from different members on that side of the House in terms of whether or not the penalty regime is actually strong enough, because yesterday I heard from my critic that he feels the fines in fact aren't strong enough. He would rather see them higher, and now we hear from the member that he's concerned they are too high.

But let me give him the assurances that I think are necessary. First, 85 percent of the charges that are laid by conservation officers are handled by violation tickets, which range in price from $100 to $500. As I mentioned to the member in my previous response, we're talking about the most grievous matters that would end up before the court. As an example, if someone intentionally fed wildlife and that led to the death of a British Columbian, I think that would be a very serious matter and should be addressed by the courts.

G. Plant: It sounds to me like criminal negligence causing death, a Criminal Code offence, not something to be dealt with by a provision of the Wildlife Act. That's a good example of a situation where I think the criminal law may already be adequate, which raises again my question of whether. . . . It may well be that members of this House have a variety of opinions on this subject.

But when I look at this in the context -- I look at the prospect of a $50,000 fine in the context of the offence of intentionally feeding wildlife -- the words "publicity stunt" come into my mind. That is, the government isn't really interested here in actually creating a law and enforcing it; they're more interested in getting out a good press release.

Particularly, I'm even more alarmed when I hear the minister essentially say that we're not really going to do this except in perhaps the most egregious cases. Most of the time there will be violation tickets used. It will only be in the most serious of cases that we would ever get involved in section 84.

But it seems to me that what we're being asked to do as legislators is give the power to the government, conservation officers and peace officers to in fact lay these charges with these results. I again have to question whether the minister has thought through the relationship between some of these offences under this act -- the penalties that are available on a first-time offence for committing those offences -- and the way in which the law responds to other matters. I invite the minister again to tell me how she thinks this makes sense.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member opposite that the amendments to this act are not to achieve press releases or write press releases. I've been lobbied for some considerable time by a variety of wildlife groups. They view wildlife, as do many British Columbians and Canadians, as a very important part of our culture that should be protected. The courts have generally interpreted the level of fines that are currently in place as not treating those offences as seriously, perhaps, as we would like them to do. We've been lobbied. The general public supports a higher penalty regime, and I do as well, so that we can send clear messages to the courts who, in their due diligence and clearly within their authority, make judgments on the basis of the severity of the cases and the degree and the range of fines that are available to them. I would not question what a judge would do in a circumstance, but I think that when you send a message about the importance of wildlife and offences against wildlife through the range of fines that are available for the courts to consider, then they will be given that kind of weight when cases are heard by a judge.

[1535]

I want to pursue the issue one more time with the minister. I want to pursue it from the perspective of a Provincial

[ Page 13374 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: In the case of impaired driving, the maximum fine is actually a penalty of up to five years and an unlimited fine. In the same context, we set the maximum fines, and it is up to the courts to decide what is the appropriate penalty to impose.

G. Plant: I want to move on to what will become 84.1, which has almost. . . . I think it wins the prize -- certainly for this year -- for the most interesting title to an NDP amendment: "Creative sentencing." I gather that the general thrust of these additional provisions is that they are things that could be added to a punishment imposed along the nature of the fines or the potential imprisonment that we've talked about. So they are additional remedies that the court has at its disposal in circumstances where someone is convicted of an offence under this act. I mean, I want to make it clear that I think there are good public policy reasons to expand the range of sentencing options in appropriate cases. The general thrust of that initiative in this particular context is probably a good one.

But I do have a problem with, among other things, what will become 84.1(1)(f), which gives the court the power to direct the person who has been convicted of the offence "to post a bond or pay into court an amount of money the court considers appropriate for the purpose of insuring compliance with any prohibition, direction or requirement under this section." I have a problem with the potential I see here for what amounts to virtually a perpetual sentence.

[1540]

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to give the member assurances that creative sentencing is not a unique title, we use it under the Fish Protection Act, the Water Act and the Waste Management Act. We made similar amendments in previous years to add these provisions under those acts. Similar provisions are also under the Canada Fisheries Act and the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

Hon. member, you're a lawyer; you know the law. So I would simply say that I bow to your superior knowledge about the court system. But just to say that it's up to the court to determine what the bond. . . .

J. Wilson: I'd like to explore a little bit here in section 17 and under 84(1). I see that under section 28 of the Wildlife Act, it gives me a list of penalties that they can impose. But the way it reads in the section is: ". . .hunts or traps without reasonable consideration for the. . .safety or property of others. . . ." Now, what would the minister designate as someone going out there to trap without reasonable consideration for the property of others? What do they classify as property?

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 28 is designed to make reference to a person who hunts or traps and who causes some concern for a person's life. As a result, we're putting that into the tier that's made reference to under 84(1)(a).

J. Wilson: I can understand safety, but my question is property.

Hon. C. McGregor: We were just discussing here, to try and figure out what we thought "property" might include. The example we came up with -- and we're not aware of any convictions under this provision of the act -- is if someone was chasing wildlife, and as a result of their firing and the discharge of their firearm, they ended up destroying or partly destroying someone's home; that would clearly be a significant offence and should be included in that tier.

G. Plant: Section 84.1(1)(g) is another one of those "in addition to any punishment imposed" provisions that allows the court in this particular case, to make an order "directing the person to submit to the minister, on application by the minister within 3 years after the date of the conviction, any information respecting the activities of the person that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances."

[1545]

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it would be at the time of sentencing that this order would be made. One example of a creative sentence that a judge could order would be environmental remediation, so a provision could be to report on a regular basis how that remediation progressed and whether or not it had been completed.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

What do the words "on application by the minister" mean in this context?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it means that in the eventuality that such a sentence were given and they were required to make certain types of reports -- and we had not heard of that; we couldn't find the information in any way to indicate whether or not the work that had been directed to be done had been done -- we could apply back to the courts to ask for that information to be provided to us.

[ Page 13375 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I am told by my staff that in practical terms, this is used in the case of corporate offenders as opposed to individuals. I take that to mean that such an effort would be made only because it was a very significant offence, and we were trying to track a corporate interest in making sure that they engaged in the cleanups they were required to do.

G. Plant: Looking at (h) for a moment, I gather that this would give the court the power to require someone to write, "I have been a very bad hunter," on a sandwich board and to walk up and down the main street of Williams Lake, or some interesting thing like that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that could be ordered.

G. Plant: Does the minister have any concerns that that's not merely creative sentencing, but it's really perhaps cruel and unusual sentencing?

Hon. C. McGregor: Once again, I would determine that that's up to the courts to decide. But let me say that our ministry publishes on a very regular basis the names of people who break the law and are in fact out of compliance. We find that that's a very strong deterrent measure, and it may be that a court would find the same.

G. Plant: I want to be clear. I may be misunderstanding the purpose of (h). The minister is talking about the list that the ministry publishes. But (h) is something where the court says to the convicted person: "You pay your fine; you serve your time. By the way, after you're all finished, you have to walk up and down the main street of some town with a sign saying 'I have been a very bad hunter.' " Am I right that the purpose of (h) is not to give the minister the ability to publicize the identity of an offender or the nature of the offence but rather to give the court the power to order the offender to make that known? Is that right?

[1550]

G. Plant: The minister said, in response to my first question, that whether such a tool was perhaps cruel or unusual would be a matter for the courts. Oddly enough, the courts are actually going to find some guidance on that from the fact that the government has put it here. The courts are going to at least assume that the government is of the view that it isn't cruel or unusual to require people to publish the fact that they've committed an offence. So I just want to be clear that it is the minister's and the government's view that this is an appropriate sentencing tool in cases of offences under the Wildlife Act. Let's not pass it off to the courts. I want to make sure that the minister and the government are of the view that this is good sentencing practice.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I said earlier, these provisions are similar to ones that exist in federal legislation as well as provincial, and in this case this provision is available as well. So it's not unusual in that sense. But there have been cases where this has been ordered, and one of the examples that's been given to me is serious trafficking-in-wildlife offences. A court has ordered the publication of newspaper advertisements as part of the sentencing provision, and I would view that to be a very appropriate tool.

G. Plant: Again, to make sure we get the example right, the court has ordered the offender to pay for the publication of the newspaper advertisements, and that additional part of it -- from the minister's perspective -- is something that could conceivably be appropriate in the correct case.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

G. Plant: Section 84.3 is "Additional Fine." I think I understand the gist of this. Essentially, if someone has made any money engaging in illegal activity, then the court has the power to order, as an additional remedy, that the offender pay a fine equal to the amount of the monetary benefits. Just for the purpose of clarification, there's no limit potentially available. I mean, the sky's the limit on these awards. If the monetary benefits turn out to be huge, then the potential fine could also be huge.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, obviously the Crown would have to prove that such profits had accrued to the individual. But yes, in that case the courts could then order that that be added as an additional penalty.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

M. de Jong: I'll try to do this as quickly as I can. This section describes a circumstance in which someone has been convicted of an offence under the Firearm Act or one of the regulations. As the minister has pointed out, that can result in the imposition of a significant fine or a not so significant fine. What I think is new -- and the minister can confirm this -- is the creation of a subsequent offence for a person who thereafter applies for a licence of some sort -- an acquisition licence or a hunting licence or authorization -- but hasn't paid the fine. I don't think the requirement that that be done intentionally exists under the section.

To put it in terms that I and others might be more familiar with, if I get a speeding ticket and show up at the motor vehicle branch, apply for my new licence and discover that I haven't paid that speeding ticket from a year or two ago, I have now committed an offence. Is that what is created here? Is that the new provision that this section creates?

[1555]

[ Page 13376 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to be technically correct. The offence occurs when you apply after you have been suspended or cancelled. In the past what happened was the director then had to cancel the licence. Now we're saying that it's automatic.

M. de Jong: My colleague correctly points out. . . . My suspicion is that under the old legislative regime, the punishment was the cancellation of whatever permit or authorization. This is somewhat different. It provides for that, but it also provides for an additional conviction.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's always been an additional conviction. Under the previous act, it stated that the director must cancel it. If you applied after that cancellation, you committed an offence. The only difference now is that the cancellation is automatic.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

M. Coell: I've had the added benefit of three lawyers and a veterinarian help with this bill, so I feel as privileged as the minister with her two staff members.

Sections 19 through 22 are where we have a problem with this bill. I don't want to elaborate at great length, but I want to say that it's a philosophical problem. It's one where we see more government regulation, more government control and more government authority in individuals' lives dealing with individual property and property rights. Although this bill has a lot of housekeeping measures in it that are supportable, I think the crux and the main part of the bill is more regulation. I'm not sure in my mind whether the increase of regulatory authority, especially to conservation officers, gives the solutions that the minister is looking for. I hope it does, but from our first brush with and review of this bill, I don't think it will.

[1600]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, you know, I find those kinds of comments really offensive. You know, COs don't have so much time on their hands that they would make up opportunities to go and inspect people's homes when they don't need to. Conservation officers are very well respected around the province, and they do very fine work. They enforce a variety of provisions under this act and others. I just think it's inappropriate for the member to suggest that somehow this is a make-work project for conservation officers.

Conservation officers want to have an additional tool where, when they believe there are reasonable grounds that dangerous wildlife may be attracted to a premise and public safety is at risk, they can then enter someone's property to inspect. These are not new powers for conservation officers, and clearly these amendments make clear that these powers apply only through conservation officers. It is not their first choice of a tool to use in dealing with these questions, but it is one of many in their repertoire.

I believe conservation officers are very careful to protect the public interest. I think they're widely respected by the public of British Columbia, and this legislative amendment gives them one other opportunity through which they can protect public safety.

Section 19 approved.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

M. Coell: I just have one question. The conservation officers and the assignment of delegation of duty -- would that go to RCMP officers? Could you now give this duty to RCMP officers?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

Section 23 approved.

Sections 24 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

M. Coell: On 34, one question with regard to once the Water Act is amended. The agricultural, domestic or environmental groups -- how do they fit in when they want to purchase those rights? Is it first come, first served? Or are domestic and farming still number one?

Hon. C. McGregor: The Water Act works on a first come, first served basis, and then the analysis is done on the basis of who applies next and whether there's available water for that group to apply to. It's very similar to provisions we have under the Fish Protection Act.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1605]

[ Page 13377 ]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Wildlife Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 64.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm in the unusual situation of having a piece of legislation, and I can't find anybody who doesn't like it. I've looked high and low, since the bill was introduced, to try and find ways of improving the legislation in its form. Most of it's technical. Some of it improves and harmonizes the legislation and provides a greater ability to deal with transgressors. The support for the bill seems -- at this point, anyway -- to be pretty much universal. I have no specific questions on the legislation.

Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 64, Securities Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 67.

STRATA PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

[1610]

Sections 1 to 53 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, the Strata Property Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Cashore in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to rise today to introduce spending estimates for the Ministry of Education and report to the Legislature on our government's progress towards establishing British Columbia as the learning province in Canada.

Last year I rose to report that we had launched a number of initiatives that went to the heart of the concerns of British Columbians about education: initiatives to decrease the number of portables on our school grounds and increase quality learning environments for our children; initiatives to decrease class size and increase the number of teachers to instruct those classes; initiatives to decrease conflict between teachers and school boards and the province and to increase the focus on who and what we are all really working for in the first place -- the education of our children.

It has been an exciting year in education in British Columbia. I think we've taken some major steps towards achieving those goals, and we've been doing it in a way that is fair and balanced. I think we have the momentum, we have some commitment, and we are going to achieve those goals and create a quality education system for our children that's unparalleled in our province's history.

We're doing this not only because this is an honourable goal, I guess -- because we all value our children and their education -- but because it is absolutely essential for the future of our province. We're headed into a new millennium, where the currency of individual success and economic success for the province is going to depend increasingly on the knowledge and skills of our citizens. It is incumbent upon us to set a new course to hone in on the opportunities of that new millennium.

It is a great time to be involved in education in British Columbia. The future is limitless for our children, but we've

[ Page 13378 ]

I must say that our vision here in British Columbia differs dramatically from what's happening in other provinces in our country. I read somewhere in the Globe and Mail -- I think it was back in March -- that British Columbia was the only province in Canada not to reduce expenditures in education over the last seven years. In the typical sort of eastern Canadian way, puzzled about events west of the Rockies, they scratched their heads and called us mavericks for this behaviour of increasing education funding every year.

[1615]

This spring this budget incorporates another increase to core funding for education -- this time by $39 million -- bringing the total education budget for public school districts in British Columbia to just over $3.6 billion. In per-pupil terms, it gives a per-pupil lift of around $143 for every child in schools in British Columbia. We included funding for enrolment pressures -- and there are some districts that are still growing rapidly -- funding to cover the cost of inflation and wages and funding for enhancements to the K-to-12 education system, such as hiring more teachers, reducing kindergarten-to-grade-3 class sizes and making the Internet a reality for children in schools right across our province. It brought the per-student funding in the public school system to $5,992 per child -- nearly $6,000 a child, the highest level in Canada.

As I said, this commitment to education is sadly not reflected across the country. I recently returned from a national -- indeed, international -- conference in Quebec City, where I had an opportunity to share concerns and visions of education with my colleagues, with other ministers and with educators across the country. Some of the things that we're hearing and seeing must greatly concern anybody who cares about education.

The Ontario government just won a second term -- a renewed mandate -- and they are contemplating cuts to their education system in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. That's on top of the cuts they've already made. Just across the Rockies in Alberta, instead of hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes, Alberta is firing 700 teachers and increasing the size of classes that children will be learning in this year. That is simply not the way to prepare for the future and to build our society. I think we in this province must say no to those radical cuts to education. This year's increase to core funding, which we'll be debating in these estimates, was again another way to confirm our commitment to that world-class education system for all our children, regardless of where they live and regardless of what their parents earn.

This year also sees a very large capital program. Over the last few years, not only has capital spending in British Columbia been the highest for all provinces, but growth in this spending has been the highest of any province every year from 1992-93 to 1997-98. Last week I had the privilege, with the Premier, to announce an additional $50 million in capital commitment to build four more schools and do additions to another 29 to make sure on our commitment to reducing class size and eliminating portables that those goals are met.

[1620]

Just a word on class size. Once again I need to report to this chamber that when I met with my colleagues from across the country, we were seen as a bit of a maverick in doing this. While class-size reductions and the benefits of learning for children are widely acknowledged in other jurisdictions in the world and while there are significant initiatives in other jurisdictions to reduce class size, particularly in the United States, here in Canada, regrettably, we are virtually alone. The only other province in Canada that has any plans to reduce class size is New Brunswick. Their goal -- how low they want to get them -- is down to a class size of 25; that's lofty indeed.

Next fall, under this budget, I will be able to say that no matter where your child goes to school in British Columbia -- Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George or Prince Rupert -- if he's in kindergarten, he'll be in a class of no more than 20 students. If he or she is in grade 1 or 2 or 3, he or she will be in a class of no more than 23 students. That's not the end of it; our goal is clear. All kindergarten-to-grade-3 classes will be at 18 students or fewer within five years. We're going to reach that goal.

Now, there are some who cynically say that we're announcing these initiatives for political expediency or made-up photo ops. I think that's sad. We'd indulge in a bit of that in this chamber from time to time. But this initiative is too important for that sort of political cynicism. Take a look at the facts. Listen to the experts. It is critical that we increase writing, reading and computational skills for children, and the absolute best time to do it is in the early years of kindergarten to grade 3. Let's be clear: this initiative is for our children. It's for their future; it's for the future of the province. We are going to make it work.

There are those who have also questioned some of the work we're doing -- frankly, interest groups that often belittle some of the hard work that I see when I visit schools and talk to teachers, people that are really dealing with our children every day. They work in our classrooms in our schools -- educators, principals, trustees, parents. They don't deserve some of the ranking and failing of their efforts by self-serving interest groups such as the Fraser Institute. They deserve to be supported and applauded. They face real concerns and real challenges every day. We will be there to support the work they're doing. But simply ranking and failing adds nothing.

[ Page 13379 ]

[1625]

Well, we are following through on the commitments. This budget follows through on them for the next school year, the '99-2000 school year. It is making a difference. I've visited literally scores of schools in the last year and talked to hundreds of teachers. They're telling me about the difference that having smaller classes makes to what they're able to provide for our children. Parents have told me that better things are happening for their children now that they have more one-on-one attention and better access to librarians, counsellors and other types of classroom support.

This budget moves forward in a number of areas in addition to that. In English as a second language -- an issue that I'm sure we'll debate here -- each ESL student that's identified for a district will enable a district to receive considerably more funding per student this year than last. The increase will be from $955 a student to $1,192.

All these initiatives necessarily place some strains on the system. I want to begin these estimates by offering, in a very public forum, my congratulations and thanks to the many administrative personnel and teachers in our school districts who worked hard over the last year -- particularly last summer -- to implement these initiatives as well and as smoothly as possible. There surely are always a few bumps in such a major initiative. But by all reports, implementing them this school year has gone remarkably well.

I want to talk briefly about a couple of other areas of concern in education, just to open up these topics for our Education estimates. One of the things that our complicated world of education requires is that our children have a strong foundation in reading, writing and mathematics. These are the core subject areas, and we test them to give us some idea of just how well our children are doing compared to the rest of the world. They're doing very well indeed, both provincially and internationally.

Our own provincial learning assessment program results confirm that. Maybe I can anticipate some of the questions from my critic by saying that I think the death of PLAP has been greatly exaggerated. We are not backing off from our commitment to provide individual student-level information. It's a responsible effort -- our pause here -- to address what we feel are legitimate concerns so that these results can be properly interpreted and put in a context. We believe in the importance of making those individual results available. Right now we're working with our key educational partners through the provincial education committee. But ensuring that school and individual results are used appropriately is a complex process that's going to take a little time to implement. I do not want the use of these results to be in the sort of mindless, finger-pointing, blame-assessing way that the Fraser Institute has used -- comparative results between schools. That does nothing for our students, nothing for our teachers.

I've even heard -- and maybe the member opposite has letters to this effect -- that the reason we've decided not to expand the distribution of results at this time is because we're afraid to release the results -- that we're failing. Well, that simply and categorically is not so.

These provincial learning assessment results showed last year that 85 percent of our grades 4, 7 and 10 students met or exceeded the expected standard for their grade in reading and writing. I'd like to see the numbers even higher, but I think those are pretty impressive results. As well, our 13- and 16-year-old students did very well on interprovincial tests of reading, writing, mathematics and science over the last six years.

[1630]

Now, the fundamentals are part of what we need to do. There are other parts that are equally important. We must ensure that our students are familiar with the new technologies. We must be able to ensure that they are able to relate to and work with their peers, that they can adapt and apply their knowledge to new and changing settings, and that they have the critical thinking and problem-solving skills to prepare them for their lives and for the challenges of the future. We are committed to those values, and we're going to continue to make progress towards them.

I want to flag a couple of other initiatives that I imagine will come up in estimates. This is a year during which we have made some significant progress in some important areas: increasing work to improve the safety of our schools, which is a matter of great concern to parents, teachers and administrators around the province; work to improve our support for first nations students, for far too many of whom the school experience is not one of success; and increase the strength of our initiatives to help students stay in school and get the message to them that their individual success does increasingly depend on their educational attainments.

There's one area we've recently announced that we're looking at hard, and that's special education. It's now been ten years since we introduced children with special needs into the mainstream of everyday school life, and I believe that it is now time to look back, see how well we've done, take note of our strengths and see where we can improve the system for children most in need. So a review of our special education system is now underway, looking for ways to improve delivery for some of our most needy students.

We've also sought, in the last year, to keep in better touch with parents. We've produced a number of new information tools towards that end. For too many years, I think, the school system for too many parents was a bit of a black mystery. Those of us inside the schools and the education system understood it, but frankly, I don't think we did a very good

[ Page 13380 ]

We also sent out -- and this was an amazing success story -- 20,000 complimentary copies of the "Curriculum Handbook for Parents." We advertised this in "Better Learning." We said that if you want to know more about the specific curriculum in grade 4 or grade 7 or grade 10, we have pamphlets that outline in detail what your child will be studying and should be attaining in various subjects at various grade levels. The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils helped us put this together. We thought we'd maybe have a request for a few thousand. So far we've shipped 20,000, and I expect that we'll be shipping many more in the months to come. So there is a need and a desire to have that sort of information, and I think we need to continue to do a better job of communicating with parents.

Recent issues of the "Better Learning" magazine addressed issues such as school safety, how to tell if your child is performing well enough, tips for helping your child stay in school, how to go about deciding whether to go on to post-secondary training or learning or to a job, and explaining how our schools evaluate the performance of our students.

[1635]

The world is going to continue to change economically, socially and environmentally, and it's going to be our children that face the challenging times ahead and will need that creativity to find the solutions to the problems that their generation will face. At the provincial level this government has momentum on the number of educational initiatives -- a long-term commitment to provide more teachers, more classrooms and more individual attention to our students than ever before.

As we approach the new millennium -- and the next school year, I guess, we'll cross the boundary into that -- let me make the challenge of this side of the House. I know the other side will embrace it, but let me make it anyway. This is an important time to make some bold and courageous decisions. Let's be proud to be called mavericks and to create a better tomorrow in our education system for our children.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

G. Hogg: Thank you to the minister for those comments. I'd like to start by thanking the ministry staff for the assistance they provided in the briefings that we've had. Also, my thanks go to the school boards, the parents, the educators and the students who assisted us as we tried to learn and understand what's happening, and also to the nine organizations who formally responded to the questions which we asked them -- BCPSEA, the Business Council of British Columbia, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the BCSTA, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C. School Superintendents Association, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the Federation of Independent School Associations and the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers Association, all of whom have assisted us in looking at a number of issues. The issues which seem to be prevalent throughout those are issues of accountability, the facilities, funding, governance, the role of independent schools, labour relations, leadership and educational programs that come out of those. Those are certainly all areas that we hope to be able to canvass in the course of these estimates.

When the Finance minister made her budget speech, she made reference to us having the highest education investment per student in Canada. The minister, in his opening remarks, made reference again to that, saying that they were at the highest level in Canada. The minister made many references in his opening comments to the quality of education within British Columbia and the directions that we want to go in hopes of having an even better educational system. As we look at and review the budget and the intent of the budget over the next number of hours, I want to have the opportunity to look at what it is that we do, how we do that and how we know it works. I want to look at issues such as the rhetoric that we hear and whether or not there is a balance between rhetoric and reality.

In an effort to do that, I want to look at, firstly, some of the visions that UNESCO has looked at in terms of where they see education going internationally and worldwide -- the vision statements that come into that -- and to look at how Canada does internationally. The minister made some reference to that. I want to look at how B.C. ranks in terms of those performances within the context of Canada and then move from that into looking at some of the ways that we can look at improving those -- some of the issues that I made reference to earlier from the organizations that talked about issues such as accountability, governance and some of the specific issues we've talked about that have looked at some of the reductions in services, which we've heard through the media and we've heard school boards speaking about.

[1640]

[ Page 13381 ]

Towards that end, I would like to make reference to the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century and the information that came out of it -- known as the Delors report, "Learning: The Treasure Within." Prior to looking at some of those, I'd like to ask the minister if he could highlight for me and perhaps elucidate a little bit on some of the comments that he made in his opening remarks. Firstly, the learning province in Canada -- we've heard that statement a number of times. It's been referred to in a number of pieces that have been sent out. I am just wondering if the minister could clarify for me the learning province in Canada. What in fact does he mean by that, where does that lead us, and what is the intent of that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, for the information of the chamber, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me today. On my right is Rick Connolly. He is acting ADM for governance, policy and finance. On my left is Mr. Paul Pallan, who is ADM for educational support services. Behind me is Mr. Keith Miller, acting co-director for capital planning.

The member asked about our goal of becoming known as the learning province in Canada. We have set out very deliberately, over the last several years, to enhance the opportunities that our children have to succeed in school and to succeed after school in post-secondary education or in their jobs.

As I said in my introductory remarks, some of the measures of that commitment are, of course, financial. Other provinces -- really, all other provinces -- over this decade, over the last seven years, have reduced education funding. The statistics and studies are fairly clear that we are the only province that has sought to continue to increase funding for public education, both at the kindergarten-to-grade-12 level and in post-secondary. So that is one measure.

But more importantly, I think, in a whole range of issues, as we've heard the concerns of parents and worked with school boards and teachers to try to improve education, we said very clearly that there were a number of challenges we needed to meet. One of those was better learning at the very early years. As we look at making sure that as many children as possible -- I'd prefer all children -- succeed in school, we know that their mastery of skills in the early years is crucial to that.

A review of research and, really, international initiatives shows quite clearly that one of the most effective ways -- the most effective way -- of increasing skill enhancement in those very early years is to provide students with more one-to-one attention, and the best way to do that is through smaller classes. Through the provincial collective agreement, which was negotiated a year ago and implemented for the first year this fall, we've taken that on very aggressively.

[1645]

What was surprising from my point of view as an educator was that he was saying that the effect of having smaller class sizes in those early years didn't stop once the child moved on and was in a more typical class size in grade 6 or grade 12 or whatever. There was a clear differential between kids that had been in a large class and those in a small class, which continued right on through the rest of their education. In the late nineties he was even able to start to quantify differences in attainment with these same two cohorts in post-secondary learning. If we want to have our children succeed, clearly this is one of the crucial ways of doing it, and it's an initiative that we take great pride in.

Other areas -- and I'm sure we'll debate these at length -- are that we have too many of our children studying and learning in facilities that are, frankly, not adequate. There is nothing wrong with spending a year or two studying in a portable or temporary classroom, but too many of our children were spending too large a portion of their learning lives in temporary facilities. Some of our schools were more portables than school. That needed to change.

In the area of education technology, while we've invested and carried through on our commitment to a technology program which would spend $100 million over the last five years to improve access to technology, we also felt it was important to start this year with another major project to connect all 1,700 of our schools to the provincial learning network, a decent Internet service to all schools -- regardless of whether they're here in an urban centre or up in the more remote parts of the province, where I come from.

There is much else I could mention. I think we have an excellent curriculum. I have heard lots of positive things about curriculum revisions that were actually introduced under some of my predecessors in this portfolio. I think we have highly qualified teachers.

There are a number of initiatives, but the goal is clear here. What we're saying is: hold on now. As a province, if we want to succeed, surely we know that one of the ways we succeed as a province is in the skills and abilities of our population. A public education system provides the opportunity for all to access those skills on equitable terms. Let's move forward on it.

I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has talked about some of his initiatives in the tuition freeze program and the expansion of our system, which also add to our commitment as the learning province. When our government took office in 1991, British Columbia was third- or fourth-lowest in participation rate in Canada; I know, because I worked in the system. Our tuition was second-highest among the provinces. Now our tuition is second-lowest -- only Quebec has lower tuition for its citizens -- and our participation rate is second-highest because we keep adding to the system.

It's a distressing fact in Canada -- and as chair of CMEC, we've had some vigorous discussions about this around the table of ministers -- that after. . . . Well, over two decades of continual growth in enrolment in Canada's universities, in the last part of the nineties -- for the first time since the sixties,

[ Page 13382 ]

[1650]

M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: Two very good friends of mine from my constituency, Joyce and Jimmy Mahy, are here. But in addition to that, a friend of theirs is visiting us from Ireland -- Carmel Banville. We wish her well in her travels, and I hope the House will make all three of them welcome.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to Dr. Achilles, and I want to assure him that even Dr. Achilles has a heel. For every PhD there's an equal and opposite PhD, and certainly there are lots of references contrary to those put forward by Dr. Achilles. As the minister said, this is probably not the place to bring out the volumes of piles of PhDs who want to talk one way or another, or talk about the ultimate outcomes that we're searching for.

The minister also said in his opening comments that it's incumbent upon us to set a new course for education for the new millennium. He made reference to smaller class sizes. I wonder whether that constitutes the new direction and what in fact you mean by it being incumbent upon us to set a new course of education for the new millennium. What is that? Do we have that new course designed? Where is it taking us?

I want to reassure the minister, as I've told him before, that the B.C. Liberal Party's number one priority -- the opposition's number one priority -- is education. We too believe that education must be served. It must be developed, and it must be creative. We want people to say: "I'm so proud to live in British Columbia, because my children receive the best education in the world here." We want to work towards that type of end.

You're talking about some changes and new courses in education for the new millennium to address that -- to lead us toward that. I ask the minister if he could highlight what he means with respect to a new course for education and a new direction in the new millennium.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with the member that I don't think we should exchange a whole lot of academic studies about the effect of smaller classes. I would only add this: I have yet to read an academic treatise that touts the benefits of larger classes. I simply haven't heard teachers or parents or academics that are studying this issue saying: "If we only had our kids in bigger classes, they'd learn better." There's a wealth of information, both on the personal level and at the academic level, that says getting our classes as small as we can afford is an important initiative. We've set a very bold target for ourselves in saying that in five years we want to get down to class sizes of 18, which much of the work suggests is where you really start to get some benefit from this sort of initiative.

The member asks for the vision. I have given him some. I'll be glad to continue. Look, a public school system such as we have really has about five attributes that we expect of it. We expect accessibility -- that no matter where in the province somebody lives, they have access to a full range of programs to meet student needs. We expect that our programs are going to be relevant to the needs of the learner and that they are current. Where we find difficulties, we will continue to make changes and improve them.

[1655]

If I look at some of the challenges we face, they are many. I've mentioned some of them. I think our challenge in attainments for our children is at least dual, maybe multiple. I've mentioned the importance of high levels of attainment on the fundamentals of learning -- reading, writing and mathematics. I've mentioned the importance of having our children educated in a well-rounded way. The one sure thing that they will face is a different world than we face, and it is as important, or more important, that they learn how to learn, how to question critically and how to formulate ideas creatively as it is to master the material of a particular curriculum. That's a challenge, and our curriculum and resources move in that direction. I think it is vital that our students have access to information technology and graduate from the K-to-12 system with -- I hate the term, but I'll use it anyway -- computer literacy. We can debate what that means. That is a challenge for us.

Finally, one last one. I think it is incumbent upon us in the kindergarten-to-grade 12 system to constantly realize that we are preparing our children for a process of learning that's going to continue throughout their life. We know that a high school credential is no longer sufficient for the great majority of folks to get a decent, well-paying, family-supporting job. We know that for the great majority of children now in school, post-secondary education is not a luxury but a necessity. Therefore we have to do all we can on several fronts: first, to make the transition as smooth as possible -- and we're trying to do that through tuition freezes, keeping the cost down, opening more spaces and making sure there are opportunities for children to take advantage of; second, to make sure that what they learn in K-to-12 is relevant to post-secondary studies and the world of employment and work that tries to link post-secondary education, K-to-12 and the world.

The final challenge that I present for us -- and this is a really shifty one -- is education to produce good citizens. We've been doing some work on that. We commissioned a

[ Page 13383 ]

In all those areas, I don't think the work is ever done. If I look at those five strands that I've laid out there, I think that in all those areas, whoever succeeds me as Minister of Education will have another batch of challenges to move the goals forward in those areas.

[1700]

Frankly, one of the real purposes of the provincial learning network -- which I assume we'll discuss in more detail -- is to level the playing field geographically and in terms of personal access. I find it unacceptable that some areas and some schools in British Columbia have less access to that resource than others. Some in rural communities have to pay a huge price premium to get service that's equivalent to what's available everywhere in an urban centre. I find it unacceptable that we are in danger of creating a bit of technological apartheid if we have access-to-information technology available only to those who have the financial means to purchase it individually. In those areas, the public school plays a vital role -- perhaps as much a vital role as it did with access to basic education a generation ago.

The challenges are there. They're going to continually change. I'm sure we'll discuss how we link some of our initiatives to those. The provincial learning network is an obvious one. In the area of learning facilities, I think it's clear that the capital plan is tied to making sure we have quality learning space for our children. I'll leave it there for now. I'm sure there are other issues that the member wishes to raise.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to not wanting to get into a discussion with respect to class size and then couldn't resist and went back into it. Let me say that I've bit my tongue trying to resist, and I can't resist, either. So I'm just going to let a little bit slip out as well. While it's counterintuitive to suggest that small class sizes don't have an impact. . . . I think there is clearly research by perhaps an equal and opposite PhD who talks about smaller class size -- that taking the same teaching techniques, just class size will make no difference. There are a number of other variables which are important in terms of having some impact. Let me add that to it, so we don't let it just sit. I hope that later on we'll get into more detail and discussion with respect to some of that.

My intent here is to look at little more at some of the conceptual stuff, to look at UNESCO, to look at some of the visions that the twenty-first century is bringing towards us in some of these things. I think that at this stage of the discussion, there will be a lot of agreement with respect to where we see ourselves going and what we might want to achieve. As we move down and make that tighter, more concrete and less conceptual, perhaps we will see a divergence of opinion on some more of the issues.

The reason I want to look at this is because in terms of being able to find a vision for education, I've seen little pieces of it through some of the pieces of information that you put out, but I haven't seen a coherent statement that says: "This is the vision of education. This is where we're going to be. This is how we're going to get there. This is what is a part of all of those." I want to rely on some of the information that comes out of UNESCO -- what they're suggesting that education should be looking at around the world, in any event. Certainly the minister is in a privileged position as chair of the Council of Ministers of Education, of Canada -- that very privileged and august position which allows him, I'm sure, to influence the other ministers in Canada and therefore to also influence the direction that perhaps Canada is taking. . . . Oh, he chuckles.

[1705]

So while it may seem somewhat esoteric in the course of the debates that we deal with at this point in time, I think that the reference, as we start to broaden it out, is very important in terms of the image and the vision that we put forward. I know that the act talks about the development of the full person and where we go with the person. I know that the minister has made some references to the directions that he sees going and has made some references to some strategic planning, and I wonder if he would present some of those within the context of some of the broad frameworks that UNESCO makes references to.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I would say that we have sought to lay out what we believe is our framework for education in a document called "Better Learning for B.C. Children." If the member does not have a copy of that, I'll be pleased to provide it for him. I assumed that he had been provided with that during the briefing of the opposition in preparation for these estimates.

[ Page 13384 ]

First of all, I can't resist coming back to class size, either. I'll just deal with it very quickly, though, because this is one I agree with the member on. The research clearly says that if you teach a class of 18 like you would a class of 40, you won't have a measurable impact on learning. But what is clear is that having a smaller class enables teachers to adopt techniques that will improve learning outcomes. And I need to tell the member that that fits with everything I know as a parent and everything I know as a person who spent 20 years of my life in the classroom -- at the post-secondary level, granted. But I knew, and every teacher knows, that I can do one set of learning procedures and outcomes -- whatever -- with a class of 100, and I can do quite another with a seminar of 15. Everyone knows this, and finally we're trying in this province to say: "Let's put some money into an initiative that focuses exactly on that for our youngest children."

It is a privilege to serve as the chair of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada -- CMEC, as opposed to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, called CCME, which I belonged to prior to this portfolio. I'm sure there are other Canadian councils with different piles of letters. But I'm afraid the member overestimates my ability to influence some of the divergent opinions that I hear. There are clearly commonalties across the country in some areas. For example, increasingly we're trying to work on measures of accountability in reporting to the public through standardized testing of student achievement, and using the same instruments right across the country. The member referred to the SAIP program. That's clearly a valuable thing, a valuable piece, that we're doing as a country to report to our individual constituencies on how we are doing. We also sought with our other provinces to, where possible, share some of our initiatives and not constantly reinvent the wheel.

[1710]

The Minister of Education for Ontario and I will say we share the same goals. Frankly, everything the member has read from UNESCO I'm sure would be agreeable to the minister in Alberta as well, yet they are engaged in the process of reducing their education funding by $1 billion more, on top of the cuts they've already made. They committed to that, and I fully believe that they will follow through on that, because they've surely followed through on the cuts they've announced so far.

More worrisome is that in other provinces there is a movement, frankly, that I think is destructive of a public education system, and that is the movement towards voucher or charter systems that simply say that the matter of individual choice should overwhelm the commitment of a public education system to provide the same sort of education to all its citizens. It is very worrisome. I fully expect to see movements towards a charter system in the province of Ontario over this next term. We've already seen some of the starts of this U.S.-based movement in the province of Alberta. I think it is very destructive of public education and really represents a reaction to a failure of will on the part of governments to support a public education system.

I think we need to go back and look at the heart of why we have a public education system. We decided, as a society, to fund this from the taxes we levy on all of us for a couple of reasons. We knew that educational attainment was essential for our success as communities, and even more importantly, we felt, as a matter of social justice, that the same ability -- the same opportunity to succeed -- should be available to all our children regardless of where they came from geographically or what their family earned or what their background was. It's that sort of social commitment that has motivated the public education system for years.

It was surely there and was the thing that attracted me to the teaching profession when I got my teaching certificate -- oh my -- 32 years ago, and I know it's one thing that animates teachers that are entering the classroom for the first time next fall.

So when I look at some of the broad trends around the world, I hear the commitment to those lofty goals. Regrettably, in many jurisdictions I see movements away from the provision of this public service and public good through the public purse towards dismantling that system, increasingly relying on private contributions and increasingly dismantling the commonalities of a public education system.

I think this is actually one of the great debates that we're going to be involved in in this country and perhaps in western democracies in the next decade. We will share that goal. I hope we keep the commitment to education as a vehicle for social justice.

[1715]

Hon. D. Lovick: It's a symbiosis you guys seem to be in.

G. Hogg: This is dealing with the world, but we'll bring it down to. . . . At some point you'll have to speak to some of the people sitting around you, I'm sure, to reference some of the things as we become a little more specific, but at this point in time perhaps we can just look at and listen to some of the directions and focuses we have to go with.

I was interested to find the declaration of the World Conference on Education for All and wondered whether or not that's a declaration that has been espoused, endorsed or bought into by Canada and/or by British Columbia. It was passed in 1990, and perhaps I can quickly read that and have the minister advise me with respect to that. It says:

"These needs comprise both essential learning tools -- such as literacy, oral expression, numeracy and problem solving -- and the basic learning content -- such as knowledge, skills, values and attitudes -- required by human beings to be able to survive, to develop their full capacities, to live and work in dignity, to participate fully in development, to improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions and then continuing learning."

[ Page 13385 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I am unaware of whether the council of ministers has formally adopted that or not. It surely sounds like something that I could get agreement around the table on. The devil is in the details -- in the actual implementation of it.

G. Hogg: Thank you, and I'll just move on to a couple more indulgences, if I may. Coming again out of this report, "Learning: The Treasure Within," the Delors report, which seems to be the international reference point that people were talking about as I was researching it. . . . Some of the recommendations and pointers that they talk about are. . . . They talk about how choosing a type of education means, in fact, choosing a type of society.

So in some ways, the abstract nature or the conceptual nature of some of our discussions, I think, is really referencing something much broader than just what the education system is talking about. It's talking about the type of society that we have. Do we firmly and fervently believe that it is the way that will lead us to social equity, to social tolerance, to economic change and development as we move into the new millennium? Those are some of the things which I think are recognized -- supported -- by UNESCO, and one of the reasons I was looking at whether or not Canada has looked at and supported an endorsement of that type of position is because that type of position starts to reflect many, many other pieces of social policy -- not just the policy reflected in our educational system.

I think that we have agreement with respect to what that does in terms of choosing a society. But it also talks about the role of the political authority, which has the duty to clearly define options and ensure overall regulation, making the required adjustments. Education is a community asset, which cannot be regulated by market forces alone -- a reference which we've talked about in our discussions to this point.

The commission advocates the bringing into operation of public-private partnerships, and I noted that there was a recent press release by the minister with respect to private-public partnership. I wonder if the minister would, if I can let him step onto the podium one more time, make reference to those three pointers and recommendations which come out of the Delors report. Apparently, at this stage we don't know the formal reception that they have received in Canada, but I'd be interested in the minister's comments on those three items.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just for the member's information, I just learned this: the Delors commission actually came to Canada when it was doing its work -- to British Columbia and Saskatchewan at least. Those two provinces did a thorough presentation and submission to them in '93 or '94 -- somewhere in there. This is work which, I'm sure, informs broad thinking on education, which we sought to inform as they prepared it.

Let me just say a couple of things. I couldn't agree more with the member, that choosing the type of education will choose a society. It is fascinating. I mentioned the conference recently I attended in Quebec, which was an international conference of mostly post-secondary educators. It was fascinating to share views with ministers from around the world. What was interesting to me, in talking to ministers from, really, everywhere, was the large number of commonalities.

[1720]

The other one I want to reflect on is. . . . Actually, a fellow I found quite refreshing to deal with was the Minister for Education from Singapore. They are doing a thorough review of their curriculum. They have a curriculum and teaching process which emphasizes mastery of material -- lots of testing, lots of hours per day in school, lots of content mastery before you move on to the next step. They're now engaged in a huge internal debate, because they're quite concerned that their children are being educated without the creativity and flexibility that they think they're going to need to succeed in the next century. He was quite intent on finding out how loose or how tightly this province and other Canadian jurisdictions deal with curriculum matters. I'm sure it's not quite as tight as it was in nineteenth century France, when the minister of education could sit in Paris and tell you what was being taught in a grade 5 math classroom anywhere in France on that day, but it sounded like they were pretty close to it in Singapore. They're not convinced anymore that that is the right direction and are looking for some of the initiatives we had in trying to build students -- to inculcate in them creativity, teamwork, problem-solving and critical thinking. So again, it's the type of education and the type of society. They are interested in changing their education because they are concerned about what their current system might be doing to their society.

I couldn't agree more with the member's comments that public education can't be regulated solely by markets. Indeed, the whole public education movement is a rejection of the market-consumer model. We have a right to education because we are citizens, not because we're consumers. Our children have those rights because they live in British Columbia, not because of who they are or where they live or what their family earns. That's one of the great strengths of it.

Having said that, though, this government and, I think, all governments are looking for public-private partnerships that work for the benefit of education. There are some that clearly we're not comfortable with. I've said very directly to, for example, the purveyors of the Youth News Network that sought to provide television technology to our schools in exchange for which schools would show a new show with commercials every day that that had no place in British Columbia schools. That linking of their private interest -- making our kids view commercials -- and my public interest in providing technology simply wasn't a match, and that partnership was off.

The partnership that we recently announced, though, was a very advantageous one. It was in the capital area.

[ Page 13386 ]

[1725]

G. Hogg: Certainly, that's the type of thing that was referenced in this, and the type of thing that I like to see. And while, through the course of these debates, we may not always be in agreement we can still congratulate each other for a little while yet, I think, as we move on in the conceptual side of things.

Before we move on, I'd like to make just one more reference to the UNESCO report and to some of the recommendations they make. One of the recommendations is that the country should be helped to stress the international dimension of the education provided through curricula, information technologies and information cooperation -- just referencing the whole notion of the international dimension.

Secondly: "The gathering, at the international level, of data on national investment in education should be encouraged, in particular the establishment of suitable indicators; total amount of private funds, investment by industry spending on non-formal education. . . ." I'm wondering if there is much of that in fact taking place through the. . . . You originally suggested that you may not have as much influence as I thought you might have with the other ministers of education. Then you came on to astound me and say that you were sure you could convince them to buy the declaration because, no doubt, of your wonderful persuasive powers that you were able to put forward within that venue. So I'd be interested in responses to those two. Then one more, and then we can move on to a little more specific stuff, hopefully -- or perhaps.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, the international dimension. Our children live in a far bigger world than we grew up in. I recently was. . . . Well, there are any number of incidents I could use. I think the one that amazed me was watching my son do university-level work and having a study group mediated through the Internet that stretched from Sydney to Glasgow. Geography is shrinking, and information technology is helping to do that. That's one of many reasons why I think that initiatives like the provincial learning network are crucial to enabling our children to participate in that and shrink the geography.

We also, of course, want to do as much as we can to make sure our children are aware of the multinational, multi-ethnic nature of that world. I think we offer a variety of languages in our schools that exceeds all of the other provinces quite significantly, and with the addition in the last few years of Mandarin, Japanese, Punjabi. . . . I mean, we're increasingly saying to our students through the sort of curriculum we're offering them that they will live in a world doesn't stop at the B.C. borders or the Canadian borders.

[1730]

Actually, we've gone one step further. Last year we actually signed an agreement with a school in mainland China that wished to offer the B.C. curriculum, taught by B.C. certified teachers, and a B.C. certificate at the end of it. We did due diligence on teacher quality, curriculum and resources -- as we've accredited and like we would for any school -- and they're now doing that. The list of requests for similar certification is now over 30. We reach out, and that gets response as well. So I think there are great opportunities here.

We have a real problem, though, in Canada, I must say. This is part of what I've been trying to persuade my fellow ministers to move forward on. It has not had the success I would have liked; maybe my persuasive powers are failing. That is, in world terms Canada is a small jurisdiction -- 30-plus million people. It's barely a good-sized Chinese province. Yet within Canada, education responsibilities are split up among 13 provinces and territories. The challenge of getting commonalities is huge. This is particularly true at the post-secondary level, where the numbers are smaller and the challenges of articulation and commonality are greater. So we'll continue to struggle with that. It's my view, as chair of the council, that we need to act more as a unified jurisdiction, even though each province -- including British Columbia -- will jealously guard its autonomy to run education systems.

The last point the member mentioned was data-gathering. I think the prime agency that we cooperate with -- as a province and through the council of ministers -- is the OECD, which does gather many of the statistics that I think the member referenced.

G. Hogg: You made reference to some of the systemic issues within Canada. I remember reading somewhere that as the Fathers of Confederation gathered to decide what powers and responsibilities should accrue naturally to the federal government, they took everything they thought was important and gave education and health care to the provinces, thinking they were irrelevant. Perhaps in 1867 they didn't play a major role, but certainly over the ensuing years we've seen education and health care become the two pre-eminent issues that our democracies, our legislative assemblies and our federal government deal with. To that end, we see the federal government, obviously recognizing the error of 1867, wanting to step back in and play a role.

[ Page 13387 ]

Before giving you back a soapbox this time rather than a podium, let me ask also: with respect to some of the indicators that you received. . . . One of the pointers coming out of the UNESCO report -- the Delors report -- says: "A set of indicators should be developed for revealing the most serious dysfunctions of education systems by cross-relating various quantitative and qualitative data, such as: level of spending on education, dropout rates, disparities of access, inefficiency of different parts of the system, poor-quality teaching, teachers' status, etc." -- those types of criteria for looking at some type of evaluation.

[1735]

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, to deal with the preschool issue, this is a matter of, you know. . . . I think what has happened in other countries is that they have tended to blend, essentially, child care services with the start of formal education a fair bit more than we have. We have tended to keep child care, up to the start of school, pretty much as a private matter. If you have the money, you can get some child care. This government, of course, has sought to increase the number of spaces in subsidized child care a fair bit. But in spite of some lofty rhetoric on national child care programs, we haven't seen the reality yet in Canada. Quebec is clearly leading the way in its initiatives in that area. Let's hope that there will be a national movement towards that in the future.

As far as information-gathering. . . . I'm just confirming this with staff. I think in every area that you mentioned -- level of funding, dropout rates, measures of access, measures of efficiency and inefficiency, teacher qualifications, teacher status -- this province gathers data. We're now working with Stats Canada, through CMEC, to develop better national measures. Now, one of the challenges is that each of the 12 jurisdictions has gathered that data in slightly different ways. So Stats Canada is working with CMEC and with the provinces to develop a national database on those measures.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to the OECD -- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- indicators, and I have a copy of the 1997 report that references those. I'd like to read into the record some of chapter F and some of the issues that they talk about, and have the minister's response to those, in terms of their application both nationally and locally. It starts:

"How well are our schools performing? Do they provide young people with the skills and knowledge they will need to enter the labour market and to become life-long learners who analyze, reason and communicate their ideas effectively? Parents, students, the general public and those responsible for running education systems all want to know how well the population is being educated. The most common way of assessing educational outcomes at the student, institution and system levels is to measure the relative performance of students within each country. A school whose students get good marks, perform well on examinations or gain admission to the best universities is considered to have performed well.

"There has recently been a growing demand for indicators on student performance for three main reasons: to make education more accountable; to provide a tool for school improvement, especially where different schools or programs with similar inputs achieve varying results; and to allow standards to be monitored centrally under conditions of devolved administration and extended partnership with employers and workers. Indicators on student performance can communicate meaningful standards to which school systems, schools, teachers and students can aspire. These standards can provide direction for schools' instructional efforts and for students' learning and insight on curriculum strengths and weaknesses. Coupled with appropriate incentives, assessments can motivate students to learn better, teachers to teach better and schools to be more educationally effective.

"Such considerations have led to a shift in public and governmental concern, away from the mere control over resources and the content of education towards a focus on outcomes. At the same time, advances in educational measurement have made it possible to collect and report aggregated performance data in ways that make them a useful tool for evaluating the quality, equity and effectiveness of education and training."

[1740]

I'm just wondering whether or not the minister and the government support the statements made by the OECD in reference to student achievement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Indeed, the Council of Ministers of Education -- Canada and this province -- share some of those broad goals. I mean, that's why we have in place things like SAIP to measure student achievement across the country, so we can report to our individual jurisdictions on how well our children are or are not doing. That's why we participate in international measures -- TIMSS and others -- to again to get that same sort of measure cross-boundary.

I agree that the three purposes are to make education more accountable, get tools for improvement and monitor standards. All that is quite real. That's work that's done in this province, probably slightly differently than it's done in other provinces.

The one thing I would say, though, is that the big challenge in using these measures is to always try to put it in the right context. I mentioned in my opening remarks some of the dispute I had with some of the outcome measures chosen by the Fraser Institute to rank schools. I have no difficulty with them looking at these outcome measures. Indeed, all these

[ Page 13388 ]

Where I have a quarrel with them is the context they put it in. It does nothing to help a principal and a staff improve a school to say, on this crude measure, that, for example, the high school in Valemount was among the worst schools in British Columbia on this basket of measures.

It was interesting that that was one year ago. Actually, those were the 1998 results of the Fraser Institute. This year the high school at Valemount jumped like a hundred positions up -- same staff, same principal. So you have to start asking yourself: what the heck is this measure about? And the more you do that the more you have to question that sort of crude ranking, judging, finger-pointing as a way of achieving any of those three goals: making education more accountable, giving people tools for improvement or making sure that standards are maintained, essentially.

So we have to get the tools, obviously, and we have a variety of tools in place here in our province. We must also always make sure that we're talking about the results of those measurements in the appropriate context.

G. Hogg: I certainly support those comments with respect to contextualizing education and what the outcome measures actually mean. Certainly the OECD indicators. . . They reference that as well. They say that it's not just the outcomes that are important, but that the outcomes have relevance. We should look at the outcomes, because the outcomes are going to be the technical side of how we compete in the international world, and clearly we have to have that ability to compete on the technical side of things, not just on the relational side of things.

So if we can move a little bit into some of the OECD indicators and what they revealed in this 1998. . . appreciate the references that the minister made to performance. In one of the documents that you reference -- I think it was '96 or '97 and references to TIMSS. . . . In terms of where those numbers came from, I'm assuming the OECD ones are updated versions of that and the most current that we have. Certainly as we look at Canada on some of those, we're not as high as we'd like to be, I'm sure.

[1745]

When we look at science at the grade 4 level, Canada ranked ninth out of 17, and we can go on looking at those. When you look at grade 4 compared to grade 8, Canada moved up slightly, in terms of the range, but we were still in ninth place with respect to the grade 8 mathematics.

I can go on. When we look at the grade 4 performances in the sciences and the changes in science, Canada dropped from tenth to fourteenth. If we compare at grade 4 and then, again, at grade 8, we dropped in terms of our performance. The point I'm trying to make is that Canada -- in these outcome measurements, when we're looked at internationally at the end with all of the provisos we've talked about and in looking at the technical side of things. . . . We're not -- in those subject matters that you made reference to earlier, that the UNESCO makes reference to in terms of reading, writing, science, math or our ability to perform -- exactly where we want to be.

In the mathematics achievement scores, again, we rank from eighth to fourth, and in achievement in science from tenth to eighth -- neither one of them scores that we'd like to have. But I'm interested in the minister being able to help me contextualize that, help me rationalize it, help me understand why, in a province that spends the amount of money that we do, in a country that has the type of wealth that we have, when we look at education on the technical side of those things, we rank in the bottom half of the 17 OECD countries. When I first picked that up, I expected to see us in the top four or five, knowing all the conditions that OECD put on it, knowing the ones that the minister has put on it with respect to wanting to look at not just the technical provisions but also the other things that are provided in that. Still, when we step outside of that and go out to compete in the world, Canada, in terms of its education system, based on this and based on the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation out of the OECD, we don't look very good. I'm wondering if the minister can help me to grasp and to understand that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must confess, I didn't expect to be standing defending all ten provinces and their abilities in education. The Premier of Ontario has not asked me for my advice on how to run his education system.

An Hon. Member: He calls me all the time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Does he? My colleague says Mr. Harris calls him all the time.

Let me just say this -- a couple of things. Again, maybe this is the context. Yes, in some of the measures that the member points out, of the 17 OECD countries, Canada is in the middle of the pack, in some cases in the lower half of the pack. We should recognize that this pack is the top 17 countries in the world, probably, in educational attainments. I think it's well to remember that. We're competing with the best, and I think we're doing well in our competition with the best.

[1750]

I think it is a constantly moving target. I would say that we need to look at those measures always, but we can take. . . . I don't think we should take great fright from them.

[ Page 13389 ]

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I would move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:54 p.m. to 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the Chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In committee A, I call Committee of Supply to consider the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

G. Hogg: When this episode was last going on, just prior to our break, we were talking about Canada and its technical ranking within the OECD countries. It ranked roughly tenth out of 17, and as the minister pointed out, these were the 17 elite countries with respect to education in the world. However, within that context -- assuming and believing that they are elite -- the mean score for grade 4 mathematics for Canada was 532, and the country mean within that was 537. So Canada ranked below the mean in mathematics in grade 4. With respect to science in grade 4, Canada was at 549, and the country mean was at 543. It seems to me as I look at the numbers through the OECD that our ranking is certainly not at the levels that we might hope or desire it to be.

As we broaden those numbers and start looking at the 27 countries that list themselves in the broader spectrum, we also get a different view of those. The minister made reference to looking at those, to the role that we played, and he clarified that there were more criteria than just the outcomes to measure. But I expect that the minister is also prepared to accept, as the OECD report does, that it is those outcomes which are on the technical side of things. . . . Those are the venues that we must eventually compete in in the twenty-first century, as we move from our resource-based economy and the need to be reliant on that to a human resource-based economy. There is a need for us to move in that direction and to start, as the OECD indicators suggest, learning from those outcomes and adjusting so that we do perform better.

I understand that we in fact were. . . . I think Taiwan or one of the countries was exactly with us about 14 or 15 years ago, and they have done things to move themselves up. The minister has pointed out that they have some concerns with respect to how fully rounded their educational program is. I think we need to have some concerns within the context of the international community with respect to how we relate academically, given that we've said we want to have the best education system in the world. We have a number of the criteria in place to do that, yet at this stage we're not there.

[1840]

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as OECD measures, I'd just point out a couple of things. Again, this is not to take away in any way from the necessity of looking at outcome measures, but to indicate just how complex some of these matters are. During the break I happened to have a brief conversation with ministry staff who are monitoring our exchanges on TV. They said: "Well, you've got to tell the chamber that on the OECD measures, B.C. and Alberta are far above the Canadian norm for those tests and, regrettably, we're being dragged down by Ontario and Quebec." Now, I don't know. . . . Once again, where do we go with that, other than that we can provide some of the breakouts for individual members on the OECD, statistics for Canada, if the member is interested in taking a look across Canada again.

The other thing I'd point out. . . . One of the real difficulties of looking at this sort of measure is also looking at the form of education that these countries offer. Here in British Columbia we have adopted an inclusion model for education. We welcome all our province's children, whatever their backgrounds, into our schools. If they have difficulty with language, we provide language instruction as part of their schooling. We provide a huge range of services to help students with physical or mental difficulties. Other countries do not, so at times it is difficult to do straight-across one-on-ones. There are always more complexities in the numbers. I agree with the member that we need to constantly look at outcome measures, both within our province and across the country and the world. We also need to be very careful about how we interpret those findings.

G. Hogg: My final comment with respect to the international relationship is looking again at the OECD report, where they're looking at expenditures per student. The Finance minister and the Education minister today pointed out that British Columbia has the highest funding per capita, and that Canada, based on this report, has the highest funding per capita -- when they combine all levels of education -- of all 29 countries that are measured in the evaluation there,

[ Page 13390 ]

The minister made reference to British Columbia and Alberta being the flagships of Canada, and being dragged down -- if that's the appropriate terminology -- by Ontario and Quebec in terms of those performance levels. I'd like to make reference to SAIP, the school achievement indicators program, which I think is supervised by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada -- which, we've established, you're the bright light of, and chairing, and able to persuade into doing all kinds of wonderful things. Wanting to look at their latest report and looking firstly at reading in British Columbia -- the percentage of 13-year-olds at performance levels and 16-year-olds at performance levels. . . . British Columbia, according to page 41 of the report, while not seeing significant differences in the performance of the national average, is seen to be below the national average in terms of these -- but it's not significant in terms of that. When we look at writing, it's the same -- we are slightly below the national averages. At level 4, 40.3 is the national average; we're at 37.5. So we're at about the middle of the pack -- or the average, in terms of where those exist. Does the minister want to respond to that?

[1845]

Within that context. . . . And I know that, when I looked at the "Better Learning" brochure that came out. . . . It was a year prior to these statistics that come through the SAIP. British Columbia at that point was shown in the context of a number of the other countries. You made reference to that. I don't see any of the other provinces. I don't see Alberta or Ontario -- maybe Quebec and Ontario way at the bottom of it; they didn't even qualify to make this list. But certainly Singapore, Japan and Korea are at the top of those.

I'm assuming that the data used for the "Better Learning" brochure that came out was data that was earlier than the school achievement indicators program that I've just referenced. So I'm wondering how we reconcile the minister's statement that B.C. and Alberta are the paragons of educational excellence in Canada and Quebec and Ontario are pulling us down, when I read from the school achievement indicators program for British Columbia that in fact, in the three areas which are deemed to be the most important areas by both OECD and by the school achievement indicators program, we tend to be performing at lower than the national average.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it shows the importance of measuring these things over time and looking at a variety of instruments. The reference to us and Alberta versus some other provinces was on the measures that the OECD were using, which I think is largely TIMSS. I'm searching my memory, and staff are searching theirs, to remember which particular instrument was reported on in "Better Learning" earlier this year. I suspect it was TIMSS as well, which is the one used by the OECD. SAIP results are slightly different -- and again, it's well to look at them over time.

The professional staff in the ministry and other educational organizations constantly look at these and try to identify patterns or trends. The member may know that one of the things that we embarked on, actually this year, was a review of mathematics, because I think most people recognize that mathematical literacy and applications are becoming increasingly important in a technological world. We have good curriculum -- and lots of concerns about whether we've got the right match and the right amount of attention paid to some of these matters.

G. Hogg: I'm not sure exactly that I grasp what you were saying other than that the report that I made reference to -- the '98 reports on the school achievement indicators program for each one of. . . . Am I correct in interpreting the minister's statement as saying: "Yes, that's correct for last year. But you need to look at it in a longer and broader context before it has a lot of meaning?" Is that in fact what the minister was saying?

[1850]

G. Hogg: Hopefully, it's not a harbinger of things in the future, then -- that in '98 we didn't meet up to the national averages that were evidenced in Canada. In reading the methodology and the thought that went into the development of this, it seems to me that the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, in reviewing those, felt that these were the most important or most relevant criteria in terms of evaluating the performance of educational programs in provinces across Canada. They have done that, and they've looked at -- as the minister has pointed out -- doing this every three years. If I went back three years and looked that up, my understanding is that Canada -- if we can leak back to Canada -- has consistently been No. 14 or 15 for the past number of years as a country, and that British Columbia -- at least when using the SAIP criteria -- has traditionally functioned somewhere around the average in Canada as well. Are those two fair interpretations and statements based on what I read here and what I've. . . ? In fact I think that's information that I received

[ Page 13391 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Neither I or my staff here can actually recollect enough of the back studies of SAIP to verify the member's statement. I'll accept that he's reviewed them and has summarized them. I have not recently, so I can't verify that for the chamber. Again, let me make the point that there are a variety of instruments. Results fluctuate over time and by various instruments. I try not to get too elated when I find us ranked near the top or above average. I try not to get too depressed when we're below; we just constantly strive for improvement.

[1855]

If I can move forward from that myself, let me, if I can, encapsulate where I think we've gone over the past two or three hours that we've been discussing education issues. We've talked about the vision of the ministry and to some degree tried to tie that to some of the. . . . At least I was trying to interject some of my vision into it and trying to look at a belief that we can have the very best education system in the world, in British Columbia. We have the resources; we have the skilled educators; we have the potential to do that. I think the minister was saying that he agrees with that -- that he wants to see education in British Columbia moving to that level. In calling B.C. the education province, I was looking for words that talked about that and moved toward that type of vision of British Columbia and talked about where we want to be. Then, because the criteria in terms of referencing Canada and British Columbia aren't to that point at this point in time, I was wanting to look at how, in fact, we can start to move there.

I made reference to our educators -- to the teachers in this province. We've talked about outcomes in terms of our students. In terms of how our educational workforce ranks across Canada and internationally, my understanding is that we have a highly qualified teaching staff -- amongst the very best in the world. Can the minister highlight for me our teaching staff and whether or not there has been anything that can talk to us about the comparisons in terms of the quality, training, skills and abilities that might be reflected in that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just a couple of comments. I think we do have excellent professional teaching staff in the province. Surely their attainments in terms of post-secondary study seem to me to be quite good. I've heard -- although I must say the staff don't have the figures with them -- that they have a significantly higher percentage than some other jurisdictions of teachers who have actually obtained not just a bachelors degree but also a masters degree in education.

The other thing that the council of the College of Teachers of British Columbia is very proud of is that they feel they have the most stringent certification requirements for teachers in Canada. And then, with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, the universities of course continue to update their own teacher-training programs. We have a variety of those programs in institutions around the province.

G. Hogg: The brochure "Better Learning" talks about the B.C. educational system and about it being the envy of other areas, saying that B.C.'s public education system is the envy. . . . I'm just wondering, the criteria that they're using. . . .

The minister made reference to other areas that have come here. There were the jurisdictions which have spoken directly to you about the quality of education in British Columbia. I'm assuming that they're talking about the broad-based generic quality of our education, not just the technical focus and the outputs that we see to some degree measured. Where are they hearing about our education system? How are they learning about how wonderful we are and how we're doing the things that we're doing? Or is this just something that is part of the role of the minister in his capacity as chair of the Council of Ministers of Education, that is carried out in that venue?

[1900]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hate to disabuse the member. I spend very little of my time at CMEC trying to proselytize for the excellence of British Columbia's education system. I'm usually too busy chairing the meeting -- trying to keep provinces from coast to coast to coast working towards a common goal -- as is usual in these interprovincial conferences. Sometimes it's a bit like herding cats.

So we don't spend a lot of time proselytizing, particularly, for B.C. I must say that there are any number of measures that the member could look at. Frankly, in my experience both as an educator and an administrator in the education system -- and now as minister -- I've always found it appropriate to treat every measure as partial. You could look at such things as the inclusiveness of this education system as a measure which probably doesn't quantify very easily in terms of the diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and abilities.

Our school system is envied by many for its inclusiveness. We've made some decisions in the last decade to try to keep that as one of the hallmarks of our education system. You could look at such things as simple completion rates. We've made significant progress in bringing up secondary school completion rates in the province over the past, really, couple of decades. There are still some segments of the population where that outcome measure is far too low, particularly for first nations students. You can look at, not output measures but measures of commitment in terms of resources that we're providing the system, both in capital and operating.

[ Page 13392 ]

[1905]

The minister made reference to another outcome, that outcome being the number of people that move on to post-secondary education. I referenced the StatsCan report that talks about British Columbia having somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18 percent of their 20-year-olds moving on to secondary education. I think Ontario was at 42 percent, and therefore British Columbia would be much lower. That was a different number than I'd heard referenced before. In fact, I could pull that one up exactly for the minister if he's interested. In terms of the percentage of people enrolled in post-secondary education, British Columbia is 18.34 percent and Ontario is 42.5 percent. This is '95-96 from StatsCan. Just referencing another area, Alberta's at 28.6 percent.

I just wonder whether or not the minister has any comment at this point in time with respect to the percentage of 20-year-olds in British Columbia who are enrolled in post-secondary education, when compared to Alberta and Ontario at this point in time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of measures there as well. I don't know whether the member is quoting full-time university enrolments, university college, full- and part-time. . . . I mean, there are all sorts of ways of measuring this. I don't really know which one he's referencing right now, so I really have no definitive comment to make on that statistic.

G. Hogg: It is total people enrolled in post-secondary education, as was referenced in the StatsCan survey that was done last time. This is information taken out of that survey, which shows, again, British Columbia at 18 percent, Alberta at 28 percent and Ontario at 42 percent enrolled in post-secondary education as of the last census that was taken and produced and turned out by StatsCan.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to provide the member with other comparisons of post-secondary participation over the nineties for this province and other provinces.

G. Hogg: I appreciate that offer and look forward to receiving that and comparing it to some of the references that have been bandied about. In fact, that reference came forward and was presented at the B.C. school district secretarytreasurers' conference. Reference was made to that, and it was discussed at some length with some of the people present there. I believe it was produced by David Baxter and his group.

He had been hired to make a presentation at that conference with respect to that, and it was one that I found somewhat alarming, because it was different than what I had assumed our performance to be. In discussing it with him, he assures me that it's accurate, in terms of being taken out of StatsCan. In fact, a phone call went to him subsequent to that to say: "This is counterintuitive. This isn't anything that I've heard, read or believed in the past." He assures me that that is an accurate interpretation of the information from StatsCan. So I will be interested in looking at other options, other variables, other ways of looking at that and hoping and believing that we do have a higher percentage moving on to post-secondary education.

I also understand that we have a dropout rate, in terms of the completion rates for people in terms of secondary education, if we look at the other end of it, that ranges somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. Can the minister comment on that number? Those are the people who do not complete grade 12 and get their graduation diploma. Can the minister highlight that for me with respect to the numbers that he has available to him?

[1910]

The distressing thing for me is that while those are the best we've ever done in this province in terms of graduation rates -- and the trend has been steadily upward -- I think there's a ways to go in improvement, particularly when you start to try to break it out into groups that may be at higher risk of dropping out or failing to complete.

The most obvious one, and the one that I've been spending some time on -- first, just trying to compile the data so I can assess the problem -- is first nations students. For them you can pretty much flip it on its head. Graduation rates with their cohort is in the 30-to-35-percent range. Yes, you do have another significant number completing through an adult basic education program, which takes it -- if memory serves -- into the low 50s. That's still a completion rate significantly below the general population. So when you look at that, you have to say: "Okay, what's going on here? If we're doing this well for the general population, how can we help this group of students succeed as well as others in the school system?"

G. Hogg: Just following on the comments the minister has made, I know that the BCTF passed a resolution and received a report with respect to the need for greater involvement and responsivity to the needs of first nations people. The minister made reference to that. Has there been any specific action taken with respect to that? The minister said it is

[ Page 13393 ]

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Cogitation for education -- I kind of like that; write that down.

. . .and the BCTF commitment to that? Are there some tangible outcomes, some specific activities, some specific policies or actions which are taking place?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's an issue that I think has sort of haunted the public education system in British Columbia for a number of years.

[1915]

A second thing we did last year around this time. . . . I asked the ministry to actually do some data analysis of completion rates over time -- were we getting better, were we getting worse? -- and then provide that data to each school district so they'd have some longitudinal view on how they were doing, and how they were doing relative to provincial norms for aboriginal students. A lot of the work, obviously, has to take place at a district, school, classroom level. There's no magic wand that you can wave in a minister's office in this building and fix this, otherwise somebody would have done it long since.

A third area we worked on was -- and this is ongoing, though we had a couple of products that came out in the last year -- ongoing work to help first nations students actually see themselves in the material that they're learning in school. This is a real challenge. I mean, when we think back to the education that we received as children, it's not clear that much of that information was actually very respectful or inclusive of first nations' contributions to this province or of their heritage and their culture and. . .recognition of it within schools, in the way we recognize a variety of cultures within our schools.

Gradually that is changing. Earlier this year I released a document called "Shared Learnings," which sought to provide classroom teachers and kindergarten through grade 10 with a variety of learning resources, or references to learning resources, that could be used not as a separate, stand-alone curriculum but as part of delivery of course content in the subjects that are covered in school, grades 1 to 10. So for instance, if we're discussing. . . . Well, take a couple of very simple examples. If you're doing a movement course in physical education at an elementary level, it might be as well to do a traditional Haida dance as it would be to teach an Irish jig. But the average teacher might not be aware of where the resources would be, what could be done, how that might be incorporated. Clearly, when you're discussing literature, you have a huge opportunity to incorporate myths, writings, legends of the culture that the first nations had in this province for thousands of years before we arrived. So that's part of what this document sought to do, and I think it has now been distributed to every elementary school -- and I think secondary schools, as well -- in the province, and I think it's been well received.

The other thing in that area, which was not without its controversy, was, of course, producing a couple of modules for optional use in social studies curriculum regarding the making of treaties and the Nisga'a treaty. These have now been approved and adopted by 58 of the province's 59 school districts and are being used in our province's schools to discuss this important part of our province's history. There was a considerable amount of debate at the time as to whether these met the professional standards of curriculum materials. They do, and they have been adopted and are being used in our province's schools.

The last thing I mentioned is, I think, the more fundamental work. That's work between my ministry, the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and first nations leaders. The federal government plays a huge role in provision of funding for first nations education in the province, and sometimes what they're doing and what we're doing get crosswise or all mixed up. More importantly, it's clear to me that the success of children in school, from whatever background, depends on the support and assistance children are getting out of school as well as the instruction they're receiving in school. So we've been working very closely with the First Nations Summit to identify ways that one can support the other in helping aboriginal children to succeed better in our schools.

[1920]

J. Dalton: I'll give my colleague a break. I know he doesn't want a break, but I want to jump in at this point before we move on to other topics. There are a couple of things that came out of the minister's introductory remarks that I took note of, and I just want to have some follow-up.

It's not a surprise that many people criticize the Fraser Institute reports that come out now and then. I must say I'm not necessarily a great fan of theirs, but I do follow them with great interest. In fact, Steve Easton, who is the co-author of some of those reports, is actually a Handsworth parent, where my daughter is graduating this year in North Van. So he has an interest in the public system as well as, as some people might perceive, the advancement of the independent school movement, which isn't necessarily the case.

[ Page 13394 ]

However, I do have some questions dealing with the provincial learning assessment program, which was part of the minister's comments. Back in March. . . . I just have a couple of newspaper articles and some quotes. At the time, there was some debate raging about whether school-by-school results, as opposed to district-by-district, would be released for this year.

At that time the fairly recently appointed deputy minister, Charles Ungerleider, commented that he decided to use the provincial learning program results that score only school districts, because of the unease. Might I first just ask the minister: was that a directive that came from the minister's office -- as to why Mr. Ungerleider chose to make that decision -- or was that one that the deputy made on his own?

[1925]

I profoundly disagree with that. I think that is the wrong direction to move in, in improving education in our province or in our country. My criticism of their technique is multifold, and we'll probably get into that a bit more later. As I said, they use ministry data, but they use it in a way that, frankly, I think tends to victimize teachers and schools rather than provide them tools for improvement.

The question on the provincial learning assessment program. We had intended, and I'm sure the member's clippings reflect this, to move forward towards school- and individual-level reporting in the current round of testing. Back in -- I'm trying to remember -- late 1998, the provincial education committee received a presentation on this from a couple of experts in testing. I will be glad to provide the names. The result of that was a fair bit of expression of concern about moving to, particularly, student-level assessing in the current round. The deputy recommended to me that we postpone this for a year, and I accepted the recommendation, indicating clearly that I wanted to move towards provision of that information. But I accepted his advice that we needed to do more to put these results in a context which actually enabled schools, school districts and parents to use this information appropriately, rather than having it used in the sort of ranking and failing way that the Fraser Institute tends to use its results.

J. Dalton: Just a couple of preliminary observations before I carry on with this theme. Certainly we in the Liberal caucus do not endorse vouchers. I've looked at the voucher system in California, for example, and I would never be comfortable with it. I think it's a wrongheaded idea. But one thing's for sure: it's addressing an angst that many parents in the public or even the independent system have about education. That won't come as any surprise to the minister and his officials. I'm sure they get phone calls every day from people who have concerns about any number of things in the public and private systems.

Secondly, as far as the comparative results overall, whether it be the initial Fraser Institute report that came out earlier this spring about the ranking of secondary schools. . . . I don't think we need to, obviously, get into that debate here. I can tell the committee one thing: as a parent -- and actually I've got kids in both the public and private systems -- I welcome the comparison; I welcome the competition. In fact, it's interesting that last night at West Van council, they approved a new 640-student Mulgrave School on Cypress Bowl Road. Yet we have a perfectly good independent school -- where my daughter happens to be -- called Collingwood in West Vancouver. But I don't think Collingwood is terribly concerned about the competition that's even coming in its own neighbourhood. I think the public system, quite frankly, should almost embrace any -- hopefully, objective -- comparative studies, because I think it will do everybody a world of good -- public and private. However, that's more of a personal observation.

[1930]

However, let's move on with this, because the minister, I think, has alluded to the fact that he has on occasion been on record -- and may be looking at this assessment process differently. . . . I have an article from May 3 of this year, from the Vancouver Sun, in which the minister is quoted, and I'll just read this quote into the record: "By providing individual results to schools and parents, we would be taking an important step towards keeping parents better informed on how their children are doing in school." Now that, I understand. . . . These aren't my words; I gather they're the minister's words. These were made back in November of last year, when the results came out.

Has the minister adopted a different approach to this? Or is he just, perhaps for a year, rethinking what we do with these assessment results?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me respond to this. First, the quotation from me in November is accurate, and that still remains the goal. What the work of the provincial education committee and my deputy's consideration of this led to was a decision to put that goal on hold for a year until we got the

[ Page 13395 ]

We've struck the committee of the educational partners -- teachers, trustees and others, as well as experts in the field of testing from our universities -- to take a look at this issue. They are due to report out to me. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have been informed that the report is finished and should be reported to me shortly, about how we move forward over the coming year towards that goal.

So as I said in my introductory remarks, the death of this program is greatly exaggerated. We continue to do it. We continue to seek ways of using the results appropriately to help schools, school districts and the education system improve itself.

J. Dalton: Certainly that latter comment. . . . We're all obviously seeking ways for improvement, in particular, I think, in the public system, because it has the most stresses and strains on it, obviously. That goes without saying, given the fact that there are well over 600,000 in the system. Of course, the government is going through a program of trying to reduce portables and address many other issues.

One other observation, just to conclude this line of discussion -- because, of course, there are others who have entered the fray. Just recently I spotted an article in the local Victoria News. These are comments that Debbie Look, who is the president of the BCCPAC. . . . She, in addressing the question of the learning assessment program, made the following observation: "It's about accountability in the system. We're pouring a lot of money into education. We need to look at all the programs and see what's working and what's not working."

I think that Ms. Look, certainly from a parent's perspective. . . . Of course, they're not the only players in the program. Parents not only are important partners in education, but -- perhaps we tend to forget -- are also the taxpayers that pay the bills.

I might add as an aside, hon. Chair, that I think we also tend to forget that there are many other taxpayers out there who aren't parents, but they're still paying a healthy whack of dough -- especially now, when our tax assessment just came out for our property tax. We're all investing heavily in public education. I think we need to pay more heed, quite frankly, to what people like Carole James and Debbie Look are commenting on when these comparative assessments are available.

[1935]

The other thing I did want to make observation on. . . . Last Friday I went into my constituency office, and there was a whole stack of "Better Learning," both the elementary and secondary editions, waiting for me. When I say a whole stack, it was probably 25 or 30 of each. I know we're not allowed to have props in the House, hon. Chair, and, of course, I will only refer to these documents that I have in my hand. But I did keep a copy of each. Now, I think the minister. . . . Maybe he could just confirm this. I believe this is the fourth edition, is it, or the fourth publication of these two documents? Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, this is the fourth edition of this. The first one was about this time last year.

J. Dalton: So, then -- and I think I'm correct in my recollection -- they come out both in the fall and the spring -- or the winter, I think, was the last edition. Or is it three times a year?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: A quarterly report -- yes, perhaps we should have it audited.

However, there was a covering letter with this, and it caught my eye -- not only because of the number of documents. And I didn't know why those were sent to a constituency office, because quite frankly I have never had a constituent come in and say: "Please, I'm desperate for my recent copy of 'Better Learning.' " Never have I had that.

An Hon. Member: I have one every day.

J. Dalton: Oh well, there you go. I guess the member from Burnaby and I obviously have different constituents.

However, the covering letter signed by the minister says: "Dear Education Partners. . . ." And I presume that means that MLAs are included in the education partners, otherwise. . . . It's a fairly short letter, and I gather it's encouraging the schools -- where these documents presumably are, for the most part, sent -- to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible: "We would appreciate your assistance providing one copy per family, perhaps along with final report cards."

Well, as a parent I have never received one of these at my home from. . . . My son graduated two years ago, so I guess they probably weren't published then, but my daughter, who's now graduating from grade 12. . . . Maybe I'll have to go home and look in her backpack. But quite frankly, I have never seen this document -- other than the ones I get in my constituency office.

I did raise this issue last year when we were debating Bill 39. I made an observation about a study that students at 100 Mile House had made about these documents, and I just want to confirm some figures that, at least at the time, I read into the record. Of course, nobody could challenge them.

Is there a document. . . ? Is one of these produced for every public school student in this province? If so, how many documents are we talking about?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do produce one of these per family of kids in school, so the print run is around 600,000.

J. Dalton: In the study that the 100 Mile House students conducted last year when the first edition came out, they calculated there were 616,000. Those are '98-99 figures. And then they went on and suggested that maybe $154,000 in public money was spent for publication. Obviously we can't confirm these facts here, I don't think.

[ Page 13396 ]

[1940]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have the information in the chamber. We'd be pleased to provide you with an exact figure on the cost of producing "Better Learning" for the three issues. My recollection is that total cost per student was around $1 for the three issues. We've been able to bring the cost down in a variety of ways. We sought the most efficient distribution system by, you know, bulk distribution through to schools.

I'm sorry to hear the member hasn't received one in his daughter's backpack. If he wants to advise me on the school, I'll see whether they got their shipment and what they did with them. My experience around the province has been that most schools have indeed distributed these to classes and to students, and they have gone home. And I must say that by and large the reception has been quite positive.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the other publications for the information of parents we publicized through "Better Learning" last fall were the curriculum guides. We expected to distribute perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 of them. We ended up distributing 20,000 of them. So it tells me that somebody's reading it and obviously using it as a source of information and, in this case, a source of information about other material they might receive about the education their children are receiving in school.

J. Dalton: We're not going to beat this thing to death. Obviously the minister can tell that I'm no fan of these publications. I wasn't a fan when the first one came out and nothing since has convinced me otherwise, in particular when I hear that we are producing massive quantities of these. In fact, if we're talking about producing them for families, well, many kids. . . . Of course, there are several kids in some families. I think we're probably wasting a great deal more money in some effort -- good, bad or indifferent -- to get the message out. I'm not saying that we shouldn't inform parents and even taxpayers. Maybe that's another question we could raise.

We certainly have to make every effort to keep parents in the loop, because it's been my experience in the two public schools that my kids have been involved in that, unfortunately or otherwise, the schools don't necessarily do a very good job of keeping parents in the loop. That even means that my wife and I -- we go to PAC meetings, and we attend school functions regularly -- sometimes get a sort of feeling, if we go into a public school, that we're not always made to feel entirely welcome. Maybe it's because I carry different hats on my head. I always like to think I'm there for the best of reasons.

Would the minister perhaps consider -- if we're trying to get the message out to the taxpayers of this province, not just the parents -- if there would not be some better vehicle or method to do so? Maybe, for example, when the tax notice comes out every spring, perhaps the minister would like to tell all the good taxpayers of this province where the school taxes are going. That might be a better use of money instead of some of the documentation that's in here. I guess the other thing I would have to say. . . . Personally, I don't think that all the articles that appear in these editions are terribly of interest to parents anyways. I know there are letters in here. Carole James even gets her picture on the front cover of this thing. I don't know that these letters necessarily reflect the mood of the parent public -- and the taxpaying public, in particular.

[1945]

In fact, I think back to when North Vancouver tried a referendum in the school district two or three years back. They made a very fatal error. The only information that the school district tried to get out was from the school kids to their parents. Of course, they were inviting the parents to go and vote yes for the referendum. Well, that backfired, because the word very quickly got around the district that that district was trying to hide something. Guess what: that referendum crashed and burned. I got a very good sense from people who called my office, both before the vote and after. They said: "What were those guys up to? They never informed us of what they wanted." The only attempt they made -- and it was rather a poor one -- was to try and get a message home through the students. I don't think that's the approach that we should be taking, because it will probably only produce more angst from parents and taxpayers when the intention is to alleviate people's concerns. That's a thought that I will leave with the minister, and perhaps he would like to make some comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is one point on which I'd agree with the hon. member: in my experience, parents want as much information as they can get about their children's school and about what the education system is doing. I must disagree with virtually everything else that he said. I think this is a cost-effective way of seeking to inform parents about broad matters in the education sector, in the public school system.

Contrary to what the member said, the purpose of this is indeed information. I mean, I just think of articles that I know, that I've looked at in that publication over the last year: discussions of school safety and the Safe School Centre, where people can get information about how to make their school safer; an explanation of how schools evaluate the performance of students, talking about the relation between provincial examinations and in-class work and what grades mean and what parents should be able to expect in terms of reporting on how their children did; discussion of post-secondary options in the secondary edition of it; talking about where a student might consider what financial assistance is available, application procedures and the like; information about how to know whether your child is performing well.

I agree with the member that for those of us who've been inside the education system, sometimes it seems very self-apparent; to others, it may not be at all. There were a couple of issues that I know I questioned the people who are putting the

[ Page 13397 ]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

The School Trustees Association has asked that we consider putting an article into the fall issue on how school board elections are conducted. I said: "Fine. Sounds like a good idea." I mean, I'm not sure that. . . . Given the turnout for school board elections, I think we should probably, as much as possible, encourage parents to participate in those and get out and help select the trustees at the local level.

The advocacy project of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils -- working for kids in schools -- was highlighted in a recent issue. So the intent of this is indeed information. We do indeed attempt to tailor it to what the broad needs or interests of parents might be. I think it is a cost-effective way of communicating to parents. Clearly it can't stand on its own; clearly individual schools and school districts have to communicate as well as possible with parents. But I also think that this serves a valuable function in the overall task of informing parents and taxpayers who support the school system about what's going on.

[1950]

In my riding, however, we have somewhere close to 40 percent of the population and a larger proportion of the population of the schools of ethnic Chinese background. A good number of them are Chinese that were born outside of Canada, and the family has moved here. Others are ones whose parents are new here, but the children were born here.

Our public school system -- and having been a teacher and having taught some social studies -- gives precious little teaching related to the eastern part of the hemisphere. Our education system, both in history and geography, centres around North America and Europe primarily, and there hasn't been a great deal. . . . Up till recently, when I was teaching, not that much with. . . . I did some industrial development of Japan and China and some of the eastern countries, but there was very little of the history of the people, except as you relate a little bit to the teaching of the industry in those countries. Since there is a large number of people in my riding now and in Richmond and in the lower mainland in general whose background is not European, not Canadian, the cultural history of those people is really going to be lost on these kids.

I can see the other side of the problem, however. If we try to match our education system to all the different backgrounds that people have, we're going to have a real problem, because there's so many hours in a day to do it. But somehow I think we have to bring in something that will give a touchstone to these students, also, as they have a cultural heritage ever as much as important in the world scene as that which we've emphasized over many years in our school system. What is the ministry doing to sort of bridge that gap and bring the education system around to the realities of the students we have in our schools today?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm glad the member found the discussion of measures to make aboriginal children feel that the school reflects their background. . . . I think you're right in saying that there's more that needs to be done.

With reference to some of the immigrant communities, I quite agree with you. The social studies task force that I struck last winter, which has just published its draft report, flags precisely this issue as one that we need to do more on in the schools. This was done by social studies teachers who say that the history that you and I learned about was indeed very Eurocentric, you might say, in terms of its approach to what our history was -- those of us living in Canada. In British Columbia, of course, the background of those living here was quite a bit more diverse than it was acknowledged to be in the textbooks of the time.

I think there's a lot of work to be done there in making those cultures visible in our schools as well. I must say -- in my experience, at least, in touring schools, whether elementary or secondary -- that I find that teachers are able to draw on the backgrounds of their students in discussions of matters in elementary classrooms or in a socials curriculum in a secondary school. On a range of issues, I think there's a lot of that sort of work that goes on.

The question is: how much can we advance that by, in curriculum guides and the like, more formal referencing to and inclusion of a broader range of materials drawn from different cultures? I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done there. I reflect on my own background as an instructor of English and literature and look at what my own children studied in school in the literature field. It's still very largely drawn from the European tradition of literature, and there is not a lot of space for literature drawn from other backgrounds. We need to do more of that.

[1955]

I'll mention one final area. I said this about our efforts in aboriginal education. I think it's equally true for ethnic groups within our province. The ideal situation would be if those children saw a reflection of the diversity of their communities in the staffing of their schools. To the extent that we can work to encourage members of those communities to enter the teaching profession, to become involved in running the instruction in their schools, I think our schools will be the healthier for it.

D. Symons: I appreciate the minister's comments. I realize the difficulty. The lower mainland might be strongly influenced by immigration in the past decade or so ago from the

[ Page 13398 ]

The other question and concern I have related to the issue of your last comment about teachers -- having more teachers with that particular background so they would be able to relate more to the students, to share with them and also to contribute to the ethnic diversity of the community within the school. I'm just reminded, though, of one exchange teacher we had from Scotland, who was teaching ESL at my school. I had trouble understanding her English. I'm wondering how it worked with these students who were primarily from a variety. . . . At that time, we weren't all one particular group of immigrants; we were a large number of immigrants and refugees. But it was interesting hearing all these kids come out with Scottish accents, because that's how English was spoken, according to them. So I think we have to be a little careful when bringing other people in that we make sure that the students get a sound training in the language of the country, because that's going to be necessary for them to be successful also.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I cannae understand, laddie. Listen, I guess you could say that Scotland and England are two countries divided by a common language. There are surely a variety of accents. I don't know how seriously to take that. We do have a variety of people with a diversity of accents instructing in our school system now.

[2000]

I returned to that school last fall -- actually, it's where I released the Shared Learnings document for the province. I discovered that this school now offered Carrier as a sort of subsidiary topic that students could take as a part of their instruction in the school, both for aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids; and that they had a first nations artist who actually moved around from school to school who delivered courses as part of the art curriculum. He was teaching students some of the traditional stylized elements of west coast art -- one of the very highly developed and stylized artistic cultures in the world, really. I discovered that the children who were from families from India also had their place in the school. I remember one teacher telling me that they were having a samosa day rather than a hot dog day. I believe that one of the socials teachers was talking about the importance of Baisakhi in the Sikh religion. Well, it's not perfect; we're a long way from perfect. But the ability. . . . And one final point that I really was amazed by: when I was involved in that school and chaired its parent advisory council and spent some time in the school as a volunteer, most of the volunteers and all of the parent advisory council tended to be of European background. I was delighted to see volunteers from aboriginal parents, volunteers from the East Indian community, participating and volunteering in the school. Clearly the school had reached out to the community and embraced it in a far more inclusive way than it did when my son first enrolled there two-plus decades ago. So progress is being made. I take the member's point that there's more to do, but we have come a good distance in trying to make our schools more inclusive of the communities and cultures that they serve.

G. Hogg: When I was last addressing this, we were talking about the first nations issues and the concerns with respect to dropout rates. You had commented that you could invert the dropout rates for the non-aboriginals and you'd get what the aboriginals' dropout rates were. Consistent with some of the comments that the office of the comptroller general has made around us trying to quantify some of the outcomes. . . . I'm looking at this. I'm assuming that the completion rate for first nations currently is somewhere between 15 and 27 percent.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Thirty percent -- which is close to an inversion, as suggested. Thirty percent is the completion rate for first nations people. Given that the BCTF has made some commitments, given that the minister has talked about a number of initiatives that are being taken with respect to first nations education -- an effort to make it more relevant, to make it more inclusive and more involved -- I wonder if the minister, based on those initiatives and those strategies, is to the position where he's able to set an outcome target that might say that we want to increase the graduation rate to 35 percent within the next year, or 40 percent in the next couple of years, and then have some very measurable criteria to work with, have some specific strategies to put in place -- very consistent, again, with the reviews that the office of the comptroller general has done, very consistent with the outcome measurements that have been talked about by the school achievement indicators program. I wonder whether or not we're to the point where we can start measuring and saying: "Yes, we're going to implement some strategies. We're going to do these things, and we're going to increase the completion rate for first nations people." Is the minister prepared to say: "Yes, I'll set a target, and we'll put some strategies in place to try and achieve that."?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have in my hand the 1997-98 annual report for the ministry, which gives me the specific facts that I can read to you from page 33 for completion rates. It says: "Of the aboriginal students who began grade 8 in 1992/93, 42.5 percent of female students and 30.1 percent of male students

[ Page 13399 ]

[2005]

Hon. H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: Visiting us in the galleries today is my cousin Satnam Lali. He lives in Langley. He also owns a wholesale distribution business, which is doing quite well in Langley. He says British Columbia is a great place to do business. So would the House please make my cousin Satnam Lali welcome.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to a number of outcomes with respect to first nations performance, saying that some had gone up and that, regrettably, some had gone down -- again, consistent with the school achievement indicators program, where they're talking about those outcomes, that we should always be looking at them, always learning from them. Can the minister tell us which districts, areas or schools in fact saw reductions? And has there been an analysis done as to why the performance dropped, or is it something that could be looked at again -- recognizing that that's one dimension of many and assuming that all data is used to, again, look at what we're doing and how we can improve? Was that looked at? Do we know which schools did see a diminishment in performance? Do we know why, and have we been able to adjust that?

[2010]

You know, I'd be pleased, if the member wants to see the data district by district. . . . I'm sure staff will be pleased to provide him a briefing on that information. I really don't want to read it into the record here. The districts know, and I've provided the information to them. It's a matter of public record, if people want to get it.

What I'm concerned with doing, though, is to urge school districts and their administrators and boards to work very closely with their aboriginal communities at a district level or at a school level in the way we're seeking to do at a ministry level. As I said in my introductory remarks on this, there is no doubt that without support from the families and the first nations communities, we'll be far less successful in enhancing student performance in schools than if we have that support and cooperation. This is as much a community issue, and in many cases a social issue, as it is an educational issue. I've said in other venues, and I think I'll say it again here, that given the history of first nations in the province and their experience with government-run education -- a history which has been one of, through residential schools, in some cases situations that approach cultural genocide. I am constantly amazed by the commitment of first nations leaders and communities to seeing education as one of the vehicles that their communities have to use to attain economic success and the success of their communities. If we can just harness that to the school system for the benefit of those children, I think we will have done an immense service to the next generation in the province.

M. de Jong: Well, I don't find myself disagreeing with most -- or maybe anything -- that the minister just said. But what he has ably and cleverly done is sidestep the issue. He made, I think, a very important statement a few moments ago, when he said in responding to a very important issue -- that is, graduation rates for aboriginal children in this province -- that there are actually some districts where the indicators are going in the wrong direction. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock said he didn't ask for all of the statistics, and the minister, I think, indicated to the committee that that wasn't a widespread phenomenon, but it was the case in several districts.

You know, part of accountability. . . . I was a school trustee for a few years, and this is something I've noticed in the education faculty: no one wants to talk about the bad news. Which districts? In which districts are there an appreciable. . . ? These things fluctuate, so if we're talking about a percentage point or two, I'll understand that the minister won't see that as pointing to a trend. But in which districts is there an appreciable deterioration or decrease in an already comparatively bad graduation rate? Let's ascertain the answer to that question.

[2015]

[ Page 13400 ]

M. de Jong: The minister is served by very able staff during the course of these debates, and he has made a statement during the course of these debates that I know he wouldn't make casually. If he does not have an exhaustive list of those districts in which graduation rates for aboriginal students are decreasing, I know that he has at least several districts in mind, or he wouldn't have made the statement in the first place. Let's start with those districts that the minister had in mind when he made the statement in the first place.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased that you have such high confidence in my ability to recall this and that of my staff to recall all of it. I've asked them. I'm not going to rely on my memory to start naming districts. I do remember, in reviewing the data, that there were some that showed that trend. As I say, I will be pleased to get that information and share it with the entire committee the next time we meet. I do not have it in the House.

M. de Jong: Just so I'm clear, then: the minister moments ago indicated to the committee that he is troubled -- justifiably troubled, I think -- by a trend that he has seen and that his staff have alerted him to regarding further deterioration in the graduation rates of aboriginal students in certain districts. He has highlighted that; he picked that example to bring to the committee in reference to the earlier question by my colleague. But he's not able now, with the benefit of the assistance available via his staff, to point to one single district which accurately reflects what he has just said.

I mean, I won't be cute about this: I want to explore why. I've already said to the minister that this is something that I see too much of in Education. It's always the good news; it's always the publications about all the good stuff. And you know what? School boards are guilty of it too. I was guilty of it on a school board. School boards never want to talk about the fact that there are students that don't have textbooks.

When the minister at least has the courage in this committee to acknowledge that there is a problem, a very specific problem -- and he did that, in fairness -- I want to explore that. But now I see the minister backing off because I want to get specific. I want to know which district and why, because I know the ministry, in tracking this, cares enough to analyze why that would be happening.

We are at a time when we are talking about devolving greater responsibility for education to aboriginal communities, so I have to say with candour equal to the minister's that I find this to be convenient amnesia. I find this to be a convenient lapse in memory that I see too much of, and I only seize on this example because I happen to be here now and it happens to be an area where obviously my legislative duties call for me to have some additional interest and involvement. Here is a chance for the minister, with the benefit of his staff -- who have this information, who study it and who care enough about it to track it -- to engage in something that goes beyond a surface-level general discussion and to really analyze, in this chamber where we do this for two or three days in a 365-day year. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: He says: "We'll do it the next time." Well, that's next year.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Tomorrow.

M. de Jong: The minister is saying he'll bring the information tomorrow and we'll have that discussion tomorrow. If that's the case, then we can move on.

[2020]

These are people who work hard in Education. I do too. No, I can't remember which districts; and no, I'm not going to rely on my memory, which is not accurate on this point. I will get that data for us tomorrow, and we can have a discussion then. There is no intent to hide here, and I find it passing strange that this is the attitude you take on hiding information or hiding problems. We've just engaged in an hour of discussion about what I consider one of the largest problems in the school system.

G. Hogg: We were talking earlier about setting some targets and wanting to look at the targets. That's when the minister made reference to the fact that in some cases they were going up and in some cases they were going down and that therefore he found it difficult to set targets, despite recognizing that those targets are something that the office of the comptroller general and the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada support.

I remember looking at, and being involved in teaching, some programs around goal-setting, and they said that when those instances arise, one should use something called goal attainment scaling, which is a process by which you establish the range of goals and respond to those. I think that that would be a legitimate, reasoned way of responding to this and being able to set some measurable outcomes that allow you to quantify, to qualify them and to use them. In goal-attainment scaling, you say the minimum we're prepared to accept would be zero and the maximum would be ten or whatever you want to do within that, and frame that. I think that that type of setting of this would be helpful.

I remember the anecdote that I used in that course and that was the famous story of Charlie Brown out in his backyard shooting dart guns into a wall. He'd shoot a dart gun and hit a wall and run up and draw a target around it. He'd go and do it again and draw the target around it, and Lucy came in and said: "Charlie, that's no way to hit a target. You've got to draw the target there first." And Charlie said: "No, no, this way I never miss. I always get a bull's-eye." It seems to me that if we don't set those targets out there, then we'll subjectively and retrospectively be able to say: we always got a bull's-eye.

It would be my hope that we would be able to, consistent with the expectations, lay it out -- start putting forward some goal-attainment scaling, and say yes, there is a lot of energy, a lot of effort, a lot of thought and a lot of resources that have gone into this issue of first nations education, and we're expecting that we're going to have some measurable increases

[ Page 13401 ]

I'd like to hear the minister's response, and I'd love to hear the minister say that, yes, I'm willing to do some goal-attainment scaling. I'm willing to say that we're prepared to look at and have some targets which we're going to achieve, because of the money, because of the resources, because of the policies and because of the energy we're putting into first nations education over the next year or two or three.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what all that was about. Let's just say this: I accept the need. . . . Actually, up is good, and down is bad in this case. I want to see the participation rates climb for aboriginal students across British Columbia. But I think a lot of this work also has to be done at the district level and school level, and that's where a lot of the day-to-day improvement of outcomes can actually take place.

[2025]

It is a multifaceted challenge here. One thing that we are working on is to do exactly what the member is talking about -- perhaps not in quite the prescriptive way that the OCG is talking about, but moving in the same direction of accountability: develop some accountability frameworks for first nations and the school districts that are serving their children.

A pilot project in this area is taking place in the Kamloops school district with the. . . . I'm sorry, I can't remember which band it is. I'm sure the member for Matsqui will accuse me of convenient lapse of memory and selective amnesia and will subject me to his best courtroom style of cross-examination. I will say only that this is the sort of work that we're seeking to support with school districts and with first nations around precisely this issue of accountability for results, knowing -- and this is the other part of the work -- that that student's success in school will depend, as much as or more, on what's done in the community and the family to support those students as well.

G. Hogg: The minister started his comments by saying he wasn't sure what that was all about, and I can only assume that he was referring to the comments that I made. So let me try one more time to make them as clear as I possibly can.

Simply, what I was saying was that through everything I've read and studied and taught around setting a mission and setting a goal, it talks about galvanizing people -- particularly if they have disparate points of view or disparate relationships with respect to governance -- galvanizing them around a target, a mission. It's as simple as going back to John F. Kennedy saying, "We're going to be on the moon," and how a whole country came around that. Those same principles apply very closely and tightly.

I believe that we will be more effective in the delivery of education services in this province if we do say: "Yes, our target is. . .with respect to first nations" -- and obviously in a lot of other areas as well. But in this example: "Our target, in terms of first nations students and the dropout rates, is to increase the completion rates by 1 percent, by 2 percent, by 5 percent, so that everybody knows what we're talking about." I appreciate there are a number of jurisdictions involved in it. That, for me, makes it even more important that we have a common goal in terms of doing that -- that we can stand up in this Legislature and say to this province and to all those other people that are looking at and evaluating us across Canada and around the world: "This is our target, and here's what we're doing to achieve that target." At the end of the year we'll say, "Yes, we did," or "No, we didn't," and if we didn't, "Here are the reasons why," and if we did, "Here are the reasons why."

I firmly and fervently believe that helps us achieve that, that helps us get there, that helps us tie around some measurement criteria. I know the minister is aware of the literature. I can provide you volumes and volumes of literature which will say exactly the same thing -- that that's how you bring people together. That's how you galvanize them around a mission, around a goal, around a direction and a focus. I believe that we will be more effective, given the time, energy and effort that the ministry has put into this program, if we do have those types of targets and if we're willing to respond to them with respect to the first nations people. And the inverse. . . .

Do you wish to respond to that?

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Yes, okay. Certainly.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't disagree at all that setting targets is an important part of what we seek to do. We've set some very ambitious targets for ourselves. We've said we're going to get class size down to 18 in five years. That's a heck of a challenge for everybody involved in the education system to do. We've said we're going to get rid of half the portables that are now on school grounds across the province -- a pretty definite target. We've set it out there for all to see, and I expect to be held accountable for how we're doing in meeting that target.

[2030]

G. Hogg: I gather our discussion is not bringing any greater comfort to the minister with respect to being able to establish that. However, I will say one more time that the clarity of that, the clarity of a goal statement, is something that is effective and will be effective. The minister has said that he's prepared to do that in the reduction of portables and in class sizes, which have been higher priorities. I think that this issue,

[ Page 13402 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll try once more.

G. Hogg: Perhaps I'll try once more after you've tried once more. But you can't try until I'm finished trying. So I'll let you know when. . . .

An Hon. Member: He's very trying.

G. Hogg: We're both very trying, and it's getting later to be trying to be trying to -- doing whatever it is we're trying to try.

Again, the strategy which will bring people together. . . . The minister has made excellent reference to the disparity and the number of jurisdictions involved in trying to bring together services with respect to first nations students. There are some wonderful programs that I'm aware of that are operating in some schools throughout the province. To crystallize their focus, I really believe that we should be saying: here's our target provincewide. Let the schools. . . . If we can do it -- have a target provincewide -- the schools, based on their initiatives and their past, can set targets for themselves, can help pull that together and move towards that. They'll be able to do analyses in terms of what's working and what's not working, what's effective and not, and will be able to talk to other schools in terms of doing that.

The minister's made reference to a myriad of those options in terms of doing it. I just think we now have to tie those options down to something that's substantial and measurable, that'll allow us to give that focus, that direction and, hopefully, that outcome as well.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure that we're arguing at all about the necessity for working to improve it or setting some goals. The question is: what goals at what time?

Here's one of the reasons why, at the end of the day, we decided not to set a specific number target. We're now at around 31 percent completion rate, more or less, for the cohort in aboriginal education -- aboriginal students in the public school system. There's an argument to be made that said: "Okay. Right -- let's try for, say, a 4 percent increase in the coming two years." At one time that was even a number that ministry people and others discussed.

One of the concerns in setting such a target, which was expressed by first nations people that we were consulting with, was: "Hold on, now. We already have some school districts that are significantly above that target, that are now at a 40 or 42 percent completion rate. We don't want them to rest on their laurels and say: 'Hey, we're already doing really well. We're above the provincial level. I mean, we can focus on some other stuff. This isn't a priority.' "

So at the end of the day, the decision was made not to set a specific, year-by-year percentage increase, but to challenge all districts -- give them the data, present them with some of the strategies that have worked elsewhere, establish some pilot projects on accountability frameworks and seek to move forward broadly, rather than setting a specific number in a specific number of months.

G. Hogg: I'm sure the minister's aware that there are all kinds of responses to that. Each school district could increase theirs by 2 percent. You don't have to look at it provincewide and say we're bringing down to a mean. There are all kinds of strategies and all kinds of methods in goal-setting that allow you to do that. Every bit of theory of goal-setting says that the more specific it is, the more measurable it is, the more likely it is to be achieved. I'll leave that with the minister and say to him again that I hope that he will look at setting some specific targets -- not Charlie Brown targets, but targets which are out there and measurable and declared, and targets which we're moving towards.

[2035]

Hon. P. Ramsey: You've got the same report that I do, so you can see the completion rates. Again, I think it's page 33. It shows you a pretty clear graph of where we've been and where we're going. It is, I think, fairly positive that in the last three decades, 1967-97, completion rates have risen from 53.8 to 72.2 -- and, overall, from 69.5 to 85.2. So the trend is in the right direction as far as completion rates.

What's changed over that time? A number of things. First, the provision of targeted funding for specific groups of students, including aboriginal education, special education, ESL -- not targeted but, you know, provided.

Second, there is the real advancement of alternative programs within the school system for children who find the typical learning or instructional style in the conventional classroom not only incompatible but at times almost intolerable. I'm sure that in all the districts you represent, as in mine, you'll find alternative programs where the instruction is far more individualized, self-paced -- enabling a student to work through materials in a very different way than what's provided in the mainstream classroom. And those programs have grown greatly, supported by changes in the funding allocation formula for districts that support that sort of work.

Third, I think virtually every school district has some version of stay-in-school programs to work with parents and with students to promote the concept that the absolute minimum education that one needs in today's job market is a high school credential -- and, as I said early in my opening remarks, for the great majority of careers and employment opportunities, a post-secondary certification of some kind as well.

On the provincial level, one initiative we've entered into in the last couple of years has been the Champions program, a partnership between the ministry and Orca Bay. I recently attended -- not that recently, I guess; it was a couple of months ago -- a stay-in-school jam that the Grizzlies put on which involved some 5,000 grade 8 students from around the province. They heard the message that staying in school was important, not from teachers and educators, but from people that, frankly, are sometimes listened to more than even those

[ Page 13403 ]

[2040]

The fourth one that I point to -- and this is the last one I'll mention -- is that particularly in the last decade, we've been making a much more concerted attempt in the public education system to link what's happening in the senior years of high school with potential jobs and with post-secondary training, through such programs as high school apprenticeship programs, career programs, career technical centres, advanced placement programs -- a range of initiatives to show the relevance of what's happening in school to children who might be inclined to say it doesn't make any difference in their lives, and to help them see how what they're studying links to the job they'd like to have and to other training that they need to acquire to get to that goal. So there are those four at least, and there are probably others that we could talk about that have led to this sort of gradual improvement in completion rates over the past decades.

G. Hogg: Certainly the minister has outlined four strategies, and I'm sure that as he said, there probably are more of them -- and strategies which I would certainly support and think valuable. But as I listen to those strategies, they tend to be process-oriented strategies, much the same as the strategies that we talked about earlier, with respect to the first nations initiatives to reduce the dropout rate and increase the completion rate with respect to first nations people. Now we're talking about wanting to do the same thing with the general population in secondary education, so I guess that leads me back to the place I was stuck on before. And that was the whole notion of setting a target and an outcome so we can say: "Yes, all of these four or five strategies which the minister has talked about, which the ministry has implemented, which school districts have been supportive of and which Shareef Abdur-Rahim has been involved in. . . ." Incidentally, he did drop out of college to go into the NBA draft, I think, after his rookie year.

An Hon . Member: He got his high school.

G. Hogg: Yes, he got his high school. So, my issue is that I believe, again, all of those eloquent, well-phrased arguments that I put forward for having some type of target out there to galvanize an approach, to focus, to put our energy into something and say, "Golly, we made it," or "We didn't, and here are the reasons why." -- and, again, we've got the volumes of research which will tell us -- will assist us getting there. We've got the office of the comptroller general telling us we should be doing that, and I wonder whether or not the minister is prepared, on the issue of dropouts, to look at setting a target and saying: "Here's something that we aspire to as a ministry. Here's something that we aspire to as a province. Here's a goal for you school districts. Here's a target for us to work at. Let's see if we can achieve this, and let's measure it at the end of whatever time frame may be established for the completion."

[2045]

I'd much rather look at the broad strategies -- we may disagree on this -- and continue the work that I've talked about that has led us to the highest completion rates in the history of the province.

I'd like to see every child complete secondary school. I don't think we'll attain that goal. I do think that it's the goal of every principal I know. It's the goal of every teacher I know. And I know they all seek, in a variety of ways, to deal with the diversity of kids that they have in the classroom and in the school and to help each of them reach those goals.

G. Hogg: If the minister is interpreting my statements as a belief that saying it's so is going to make it so, then I want to clear up any misperception or misunderstanding he may have, because that's clearly not what I'm saying. I believe that all of the initiatives that are being taken must be taken, but I also believe that they will be more effective if we say that we're going to measure what the outcome will be -- and how that will be measured at the end. Certainly there are volumes of literature -- not just out there in the world but right here in terms of this Legislature, in terms of that famous council that the minister chairs -- that is saying the same thing with respect to outcomes and the directions that come with those.

Are there any specific goals that the ministry is going to be setting that are going to be measurable, other than the two that we've made reference to in terms of the portables and the class size? Are there some other specifics? I'm wondering whether I'm going to have to go through this in each subject area that we might get into in the course of our somewhat not-too-lengthy discussions, hopefully, over the course of the next couple of days. I really want to emphasize that not only in the course of theory and literature but certainly in the course of practice and the information from the office of the comptroller general, measuring those outcomes really does become an important way of galvanizing the strategies and allowing them to be implemented.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We probably do have a bit of a disagreement between the two sides -- not on the importance of

[ Page 13404 ]

I'm afraid I do differ on some of the conclusions that the member opposite makes. My experience as an educator over the years has been that it's very difficult at times to draw specific cause-and-effect relationship in the field of education until long after -- sometimes after a great deal of time has passed and much research has been done. You and I started this discussion by talking about some of the disputes that even now exist over the effect of class size reduction years after -- actually, close to 15 years -- some of the work was begun in the STAR project in Tennessee and elsewhere. I think the results are fairly conclusive. The member thinks that there are other people with lots of letters after their names who disagree. We'll probably have to debate that at another time as well.

[2050]

I also -- though charged with broad provincial initiatives in education -- think that a lot of the work of improving these results does indeed occur at the classroom and school level. Setting the framework, providing information, and constantly working on a better curriculum and resources are some of the keys to making that progress happen.

I'm getting the high sign from the Chair. Noting the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 3:06 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

Hon. L. Boone: Before we get started, I want to correct a figure that I quoted to the member prior to lunch on treatment resource beds in Oliver. I think I mentioned that it was $50,000. In fact, it's a highly intensive treatment resource. I want to state that this is not a replacement for the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch; but the two-bed treatment resource is $90,000 per bed.

V. Anderson: I want to raise two areas of process. In one of them particularly I will use -- without using names -- the background history of a case that we're all familiar with. It's come up in estimates over the last three or four years as well as in correspondence. In this particular case, which highlights what happens in other cases, as well, there have been concerns over these four years or more about the process that has taken place. At the moment we're not talking about decisions that have been made or who's making decisions; we're talking about process. In the process there has been the attempt, both by the family and myself and others, to indicate that the process has not been working well, or at all fairly, from the point of view of the family, the children and the people who are concerned.

The question has been: how do you get the process reviewed? How do you get the process re-examined so that you can be sure that the information and the recommendations are accurate and viable, so that when they go to court, the court in fact has a balanced presentation from all points of view and so that in actual fact, the children and the families have fair and efficient and effective representation?

There are many of us who have been involved, and I also speak for others who have related to us -- professionals in the field who have been dealing with this particular family -- that it would be true of other families as well. Over the last four years we have tried to find a way of putting in place a process for review and for affirming and examining the process so that we can be sure from all points of view that the decisions and the information are fair.

Over that period of time we have contacted and written letters, as the minister is aware, to the children's commissioner; the ombudsman; the child, youth and family advocate; the minister herself and previous ministers; and the child protection deputy director. In each case we have been told that because it's before the courts, it cannot be reviewed. The very fact that it's before the courts is the reason for review, in order that the information can be verified and the process, if false, as we believe it is, can be clarified -- particularly so that the process is seen in light of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the service delivery principles and the principles of the best interests of the child.

[1510]

[ Page 13405 ]

Everyone says that there is a way to review the process, to question it and have it to re-examine. So what I'm asking the minister is: when they are turned down by the ministry, by the deputy director for quality assurance, by the ombudsman, by the children's commissioner, by the child, youth and family advocate, where is the family or other interested persons able to go to verify and have reviewed by an independent body that the standards and the principles of the Child, Family and Community Service Act are being followed, in order that we can be assured that the information that is secured and sent forward is accurate, fair and efficient?

Hon. L. Boone: When things are before the court, we can't deal with them, and that's standard procedure with most items. If they're before the court, we can't be second-guessing the court. So the court is where these decisions will be made. From what I understand, in the particular case you're talking about there are two court processes involved there.

V. Anderson: I understand that one is not interfering with the decision of the court. But the court has to deal with the information that comes to it. What we're questioning is the authenticity, the truth and the validity of the statement that comes to the court.

What we're also asking about is that the information that comes to the court comes, basically, from two points of view. It comes from the point of view of the ministry and its process, and it comes from the point of view of whoever else is standing up for the child, which is normally the family, or in some cases there may be other people. But if the family or these other persons are not given the opportunity to deal with information in a fair and just way, then they aren't able to bring to the court the balance it needs.

[1515]

What I'm trying to say to the minister is that we're not questioning what the court does once it gets information. What we are doing is questioning the nature of the information that is available to come to the court so that it's balanced, fair and total. At the present time all indications from all of the people who are involved -- not only in this and other cases -- are that the process at the moment doesn't allow that. When one questions it, you don't. . . . If I can make an unfair illustration, you don't say to a doctor, "When you have new information which is crucial to the well-being of the patient, hold that information until after the operation," and then, if the patient happens to die because the proper information wasn't available, say: "Well, I'm sorry; it's too bad that we didn't know that earlier."

What we're trying to do is be fair to the court and fair to the children and say that we need to get accurate, balanced information. The present process is not making that possible, and there's no way in process at the moment because of this "We can't deal with it before the court. . . ." But if you were to follow that through, then many of the processes of the ministry would not be viable, because it's before the court. The court is to have a total process, and our court process is built on someone speaking for both sides of the case. What we're saying is that in this process, both sides of the case are not being adequately presented, and the process is being overweighted by the power and the money and the effort of the ministry against the families and therefore against the well-being of the children. So the guiding principles here of the children being involved, their wishes being heard, their well-being, their relationship to their families being maintained wherever possible. . . . Those issues are not being preserved. It's clear and it's concise.

My question is the question of process. What process does the ministry have in place in order that we can ensure there's fairness and balance and equity in the material that goes to the judge for the judge's decision?

Hon. L. Boone: You're asking me to prejudge what the judge is getting. The courts judge those things, and the courts determine whether the information that they receive is adequate or not. But it's certainly not up to us to prejudge. I really take exception to you indicating that we are not standing up for the children. That is our mandate -- to protect children -- and that is what we are doing. When we go to court, that is what we believe is in the best interest of the child, so I do take exception to that. But the courts are there to determine the thing. They make their own decisions as to what's acceptable and what's not acceptable information for them.

[1520]

One of the well-being items of the UN convention on the rights of the child that this province has signed onto, as well as Canada, is that the children have a right to know their history and their heritage, among other things. They have the right to know of the parents and the family from which they have come in as positive a way as possible, even when they may not be able to live with them for whatever reason. One of the realities that we need to know is: what information is being given to the children about their parents? There's every

[ Page 13406 ]

Let me use a personal illustration that brings this home. We have a daughter who was adopted. One of the most helpful things in her life would be being able to know the medical history from which she comes, which is fundamental to concerns that she has at the present time. This is not happening for a great many of our children. They are cut off from their history and their background. So while they're in foster care, while they're in the care of the ministry, time after time there is a separation there which shouldn't be.

What I'm trying to say is: what is the process whereby we can find a way of reviewing the process -- I'm not talking about the decision made by the judge at the moment, but the process -- whereby the material which comes before the judge is tested out for its accuracy, its balance and its validity? I hear the minister saying that there is no process, there is no review. The figment of having an ombudsman, a child, youth and family advocate, a children's commissioner and a quality assurance manager. . . . None of these things enable us -- and I'm talking about the community as a whole -- to test out the process by which children are taken, managed and handled by the ministry before they bring information to the court.

I'll use one other illustration that we're aware of -- a particular case whereby the doctor who knew the children best was never referred to. Other doctors were referred to, and the information given by the other doctors led them in false directions in the history that they gave about the family. Because of that, the conclusions that were arrived at were false. You give a false context, you come up with a false conclusion. This is not good enough. We must find another way. I'm asking about a process whereby a review of the process can be undertaken.

[1525]

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. L. Boone: The member is wrong, in that he says that this minister has the final decision. This ministry does not have the final decision, nor do our staff. The final decision is the court's, and that is what the courts are there for. We do have a complaints resolution process that. . . . In fact, Joyce Preston praised the dispute resolution process that we have. Amazing, isn't it? She actually did say that we do have a complaints resolution process that is a good one. We have in place all kinds of people to look over our shoulders, but the bottom line is that the courts have the final decision.

V. Anderson: One final comment. Ever since I've been involved here with this government and ministry -- not just with this minister but with Social Services, Children and Families -- they've hidden behind the courts. They hide behind the courts, and I think we have to say this loud and clear: they hide behind the courts. They're like a little child hiding behind their mother's skirts so that they can't be dealt with in any way at all. What the ministry does. . . . They have court managers.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

V. Anderson: They have high-priced lawyers -- banks of them. They have persons in the ministry who are given orders by their superiors and they have to follow them. There's no way you can question their order. There's no way. . . . Let me just give an illustration of how they use the system.

In a particular case -- and I want to give the minister credit -- there were some finances needed by the family involved in order to prepare the documents for court. The ministry said: "Yes, in this particular case we'll help with the finances" -- and they list it. But along with that simple statement, which could have been a simple letter that said, "Here, you can have these funds," and the amount of funds, and so much per page -- which was what the first line said: "Photocopying will be at 25 cents a page, and will not exceed the sum of $1,000. . . ." Fair enough, thank you. But the rest of the letter said:

"2. That the Appellant comply with the Rules of Court as it relates to the hearing of the Appeal in the above matter, and, in particular, Rule 49.

"3. That the within Appeal shall be heard and determined on the scheduled date. . .and shall not be adjourned.

"4. That the Appellant will provide the original invoices as it relates to photocopying costs.

"5. That the Appellant will provide the filed written Argument forthwith, and in any event on or before May 31, 1999.

"6. That the Appellant will provide, to the Respondent, copies of the Appeal Books, including Transcript of Evidence of any and all proceedings in the Court below and copies of Exhibits, as set out in the Appeal Books prior to May 31, 1999.

"7. That in the event that the Appellants agree to the above conditions, please confirm the same in writing."

[1530]

I'm disappointed and I'm frustrated and I'm angry, and I want to express the anger of children out there -- and of their families -- because of the misuse of the power in the ministry, which does not enable all of the facts, all of the circumstances of their history, to be presented fairly and justly before the courts.

[ Page 13407 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. L. Boone: They do the best they can to make sure that they can keep those connections alive. I talk to those parents; I talk to those foster parents. I know their dedication to the kids. I know their dedication to keeping those connections alive. I know that I, as a foster parent, worked very hard to make sure that my foster daughter knew her mom -- that the connections were there -- and she has, for several years now, been reconnected with her real mother and her parents. I am extremely glad about that, and most foster parents are very glad about that as well. To indicate that children are coming into an abusive situation in foster care is outrageous -- absolutely outrageous -- and I will not sit here and allow that member to make statements such as that about the foster parents in our system.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

Hon. L. Boone: I will not allow that. Nor will I allow this member to slur the many workers out there who do jobs that are extremely difficult, often working under dangerous circumstances. They are doing the best they can to keep children in this province safe. These are outrageous comments by this member, and I cannot let them go uncommented on by myself.

V. Anderson: I thank the minister for her comments. I appreciate, with her, the work that foster parents do under a very difficult system. They too are bound by rules and regulations whereby overnight -- this also has happened, and cases are going on for three or four years where they're fighting it -- the ministry cancels their foster care arrangement without any ability for them to justify it. They just say: "It's a contract. We cancelled it, and you're done." Many foster parents and their children have been interrupted by the ministry unjustly and unfairly and, again, without a process of review.

I too give credit to the foster parents who work under very difficult circumstances and, increasingly, under regulations which have become more difficult. I have received a copy of the foster parent agreement, with the names blanked out. They wanted me to read it for the purpose of. . . . They were not able to sign it because it required of them things that they could not justifiably agree to.

[1535]

If we're blind to that process -- the process of the government, which only the government can change -- the errors and the mistreatment will continue. It has nothing to say about the workers, because they're only following orders. It has nothing to say about the foster care, because they're doing the best they can under the circumstances. But the process is inadequate. What I'm trying to encourage is for us to find a way to change it. I'd be happy to meet with the minister and with the deputies to discuss how we can find a way through this for the hundreds and thousands of people in B.C. that it affects every day and every year.

B. Barisoff: I'll pick up where I left off this morning. I've probably calmed down a little bit from where I was. I've got a few more questions that I'd like to ask the minister. A couple of questions that I asked the minister. . . . She said she had other information, and I would like to ask the minister if she could show me that information on a privileged and a personal basis, so that I could see it.

Hon. L. Boone: I've indicated to the member over there that at this particular time I am unwilling to do so. I think that his personal involvement in this case would not make him an unbiased person, and I am not willing to give confidential information to him at this time.

B. Barisoff: Then I would ask the minister whether she would give that information to our critic for Children and Families.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

B. Barisoff: Then I'll demand that we get an independent inquiry into what's taking place. If nobody can get this information to look at, then I've got a question: what's going on? We listened today. We heard that we had a contract that had the support of the entire community, which was running, roughly, at under $30,000 per child. The minister indicated in her starting remarks that this has now gone to $90,000 per child. I'd like to ask the minister: who has this contract at $90,000 per child in the Oliver area?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, there are three processes that these individuals did not avail themselves of. They would not appeal the decision; they did not meet with the assistant deputy minister of protection; and they did not meet with the regional director. There is an independent process that they can go to; they can go to the ombudsman. So far they haven't even availed themselves of the processes that have been available to them.

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to say that I don't have a personal relationship with the Rislings or the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch. In fact, they weren't even the ones who initially came to my office. It was their neighbour who came, and then they came to talk to me as their MLA. If the minister has got information that dictates that something should happen, then I think that an independent inquiry must be looked into.

Now she keeps going back and going around in a circle. I'd like to ask the minister: who's got the contract at $90,000 in

[ Page 13408 ]

[1540]

B. Barisoff: Does ARC have any other contracts in the province of B.C.?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me whether these are evergreen-type contracts, or do they come up for renewal on a periodic basis every year or every second year?

Hon. L. Boone: Periodic basis.

B. Barisoff: I'm just reading here the contract reform changes to the competitive process. It says the intention is that the ministry can turn to agencies with continuing agreements and develop services without going to tender. Is this something that the Ministry for Children and Families is adhering to -- that these automatically will go to tender -- and what's the periodic time frame?

Hon. L. Boone: We are trying to move towards continuing agreements. This -- ARC -- was tendered. We have not signed a continuing agreement with them yet; they're on a one-year agreement. They haven't signed for that. We are trying to move, in some areas, to continuing agreements so that we can have some continuity of services. That is something that the sector has asked me for, and -- I think you would agree -- they want to know that they're going to have ongoing commitments, not to just one year, so that they can do some planning on a multi-year basis. But so far we haven't signed any continuing agreements with anybody.

B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister would know what it costs in this province to have somebody incarcerated for a year.

Hon. L. Boone: We're taking a guess. We guess it's about $70,000 or $80,000, but we'll check with that sector to find out what it does cost.

B. Barisoff: I think the minister has probably made a pretty good guess -- because I wouldn't ask the question unless I knew the answer. The question that I have, then, is: what are we providing these children for the $90,000 per year, on a per-child basis, that we're spending to create these group homes? I'd just like to know: what would this ARC home. . . ? What are they providing for these children for $90,000?

[1545]

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me what kinds of kids the Rislings looked after at Victoria Creek Youth Ranch in the last two years? Any of these kids -- would they fit into that criteria?

The Chair: Hon. member. . . . I'll remind the member that we are on the estimates for 1999 and 2000. This morning we canvassed that issue at great length, so I would ask the member to please ask a different line of questioning or reframe the question.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister tell me whether, in the last year, any of these types of children were placed in the care of the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch and the Rislings?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't believe that's true: that there were any similar kids that would go into this resource that were with the Rislings. However, we'd have to look into the background of each and every child that was there. I can't say definitively that that's not so.

B. Barisoff: I would suggest to the minister that she definitely look into that, because I happen to know that the Rislings struck the worst of the worst kids that were in the South Okanagan.

Just before I close, there are a couple of things that I'd like to ask. First, I'd like to ask the minister to take back the statement where she said that I had a personal involvement in this. My personal involvement is only due to the fact that I am the MLA for that area. That's the only personal involvement I've got, and I expect the minister to retract the statement.

The other is that I will again ask the minister to have a public inquiry into what has taken place here. I don't know what it's going to take, but I'll keep asking the question until such time as, somewhere down the line, we get a public inquiry. When we have a facility that has the support of the community that this resource has, that was getting paid under $30,000 per child and, I happen to know, taking the most difficult children that were in the South Okanagan, and we now go to facilities that are paying in excess of $90,000. . . . Further along from that question, I'd like to ask the minister: is that the highest that we're paying in the province, or are there areas where we're paying more than $90,000 per child?

[1550]

B. Barisoff: There were a couple other questions that I had there too. One was to withdraw the statement that I had any kind of personal interest, because this is simply a matter dealing with constituents in Okanagan-Boundary.

Hon. L. Boone: If that offends the member, I certainly will withdraw.

B. Barisoff: The other question that I'd like to ask is. . . . The minister has indicated that there are other facilities that are getting more than $90,000 per client -- per child. Could the minister indicate to me what the highest-end level is?

[ Page 13409 ]

D. Jarvis: I have a couple of questions I want to ask the minister with regard to Victoria Creek Youth Ranch. Specifically, one is that in her earlier statement, she said that the expert that she sent out to verify or support the ministry in their decision to close the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch. . . . She said that they never interviewed the four boys. So I am wondering if the minister could tell me: if the experts sent out never talked to the boys, did she tell the ministry that the boys actually recanted their statements with regard to the owners of the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch?

Hon. L. Boone: I think I've dealt with this already, but I will do so once more, and that's it. She was not there to review the investigation. She was there to look over the information that they had, and she spoke with staff to determine whether the decision to close was in fact a reasonable one. And that's what she did.

The Chair: The Chair reminds the member that the question was asked this morning, and the answer was given. Again, I'll remind the members that this issue has been canvassed at great length today and strongly suggest that the member perhaps would like to take a different line of questioning.

D. Jarvis: I beg to challenge the Chair on that aspect, because the question of whether the boys had recanted the story or not has not been brought up yet.

The Chair: The question of whether or not the member agrees with the Chair is not debatable. The Chair has in fact stated that this issue has been canvassed at great length this morning and this afternoon again. The Chair would also request that you either continue with a different line of questioning or perhaps rephrase your question.

D. Jarvis: I would suggest, then, that the Chair probably is joining in with the minister in doing a cover-up on the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order, hon. Chair. The member knows full well that the Chair has the authority to make such rulings and that the Chair's authority is not to be challenged. His comments are entirely inappropriate and unacceptable in this House. On behalf of all of the members, who I'm sure are offended, I ask him to withdraw those comments.

The Chair: The Chair also requests that the member withdraw his comments.

D. Jarvis: Yes, the member will withdraw.

[1555]

I. Chong: In keeping with the tradition of those hallmarks of good parliamentary debate, I would like to begin some of my questions for the ministry.

In regard to the wait-lists for the capital region area here in Victoria -- and I'm sure the minister has information in her binders -- I just want to bring her up to date in case she doesn't have that information as to the waiting lists for adults with developmental disabilities. At this time, I understand, in the capital region there are 50 adults waiting for residential placement, and of these 50 adults, 15 are urgent, 33 adults are on wait-lists for day services, and 18 adults are urgently waiting for respite care.

Children with special needs in the capital region. There are 70 families waiting for respite services through a community agency, Community Options; 55 families are waiting for special sitters through the Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children; over 60 have been wait-listed for supported child care; and over 20 families are wait-listed for behavioral support. Perhaps those numbers appear minimal to the minister, given the numbers that she may have for the entire province, but certainly in the capital region they are significant and affect a number of families in this area.

So my question is to the minister. It seems that waiting lists in this ministry have existed since day one, since the inception and creation of this new ministry. I would like to know what this minister, her colleagues at Treasury Board and the former host ministries of the services that her ministry now provides -- essentially, the Ministries of Health, Human Resources and Attorney General -- have done in order to ensure that adequate funding for these services for children's needs have been provided for -- specifically services for children's needs.

Hon. L. Boone: For children and youth with special needs, in the year 1998 we spent $61.9 million. This year we have budgeted $63.6 million. We have an increase, as you can see, of $2 million on this. We serviced approximately 12,000 children in the province in the year '98-99.

[1600]

But I want to be clear that in terms of interministerial cooperation. . . . I feel that there has been a lack of support for the needs of children in British Columbia as a result of a lack of interministerial discussions. I would like to ask the minister: what specific initiatives of the past few years have this minister and her predecessor put forward that have in fact been rejected by Treasury Board? Can she answer that?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

I. Chong: We know that the ministry staff in the past have asked for more money for addiction treatment for youth

[ Page 13410 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order. Cabinet decisions are not a subject for debate here or elsewhere.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

I. Chong: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your appropriate decision.

I'm not asking the minister to provide us with cabinet decisions. Certainly, through working with her staff, there have obviously been consultations with them and interministerial consultations, I would imagine, seeing that this ministry was the creation of a number of programs through the Ministries of Health, Human Resources and Attorney General. As a result of the creation of this ministry and the responsibilities that have been transferred over to this ministry, I would have expected that there would be some carry-on work that this ministry would have had to pick up in addition to some new initiatives.

Interjection.

I. Chong: I thank my colleague for reminding me that perhaps there are some priorities that would have been identified. In that framework, I'm just requesting if the minister can share with us a list of priorities or a list of initiatives that either they continued with as a result of becoming a new ministry or she has since initiated as minister which have not been able to proceed. They're not necessarily cabinet decisions. If they haven't been able to proceed, perhaps she could advise us where the difficulties have been.

[1605]

I was handed some information from our critic just a moment ago. I would like the minister, then, to confirm this. I mentioned that as I understood, in the capital region there are 50 adults waiting for residential placement. Earlier today the minister advised that there were, in fact, 300 in the entire province wait-listed for residential care. Is it correct for me to assume that if 50 of those 300 people in the province are in the capital region, we represent one-sixth of the entire wait-listed adults with developmental disabilities in the residential placement crisis area?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there are high numbers in Victoria. There was an institution here -- Glendale -- so you will find that the numbers are higher here than elsewhere.

I. Chong: I have one last area I'd like to question the minister on, and that has to do with the benchmarks for the accountability matrix. In the area of accountability, I'd like to speak on the accountability and evaluation of pilot programs.

The previous Minister for Children and Families, who is now the Minister of Health, announced some three years ago that there were about 20 pilot programs targeted for services to children aged zero to three years in high-risk areas. I would hope that the minister has information on that. My question to her is: where are the evaluations of these programs, assuming that there have been successful outcomes, and when would these project have been implemented over the course of the three years?

Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about the Building Blocks program. We have ten of them; they are ongoing. We are looking at the evaluation process. Some of them that we initially planned were amalgamated. Some never actually got off the ground, but we do have ten that are going.

I want to get on the record here, just for the information, that in the community living for adults, we have, because of the overspending that we did. . . . We keep saying that our budgets were overrun for the last few years as a result of spending. We placed 69 in '97-98 -- 69 additional people served. In '98-99 we served 618 new individuals, who were put into the community living sector, so you can see why our budgets were overrun at that point in time.

[1610]

Back to my original question on the accountability and evaluation of these pilot programs. The minister has mentioned that there are ten. As I understand it, there were 20 pilot programs that were targeted. I'm wondering if the minister can provide us with a complete and comprehensive listing of those 20 targeted pilot programs -- and which of those ten that she is referring to are either in existence or successful and which of those ten could not proceed, for whatever reason, or are still perhaps pending proceeding. Can she at least give us an idea as to where we are with those programs, to assist us in looking at the specific performance measurements that will perhaps come out in a few years from now?

Hon. L. Boone: To save time, I'll get that list to you.

L. Reid: One of the issues that I want accounted. . . . I just want to thank my colleagues for making some contributions to the debate this afternoon. In one of the issues I want accounted, I want to reference the remarks made by the member for Vancouver-Langara in terms of the process. One of the cases that is very, very troubling to me -- and I know I've shared my concerns directly with members of the ministry's staff -- is the Anna Rath case. The minister will know some information about this, I trust. It is never my intention to compromise anyone's confidentiality on these matters, but this family wishes their concern to be raised in this Legislature and to appear as a matter of record, which is the reason I am engaging in this debate.

[ Page 13411 ]

Everything was given to the ministry counsel in the very first week -- absolutely everything. It's my understanding from all folks involved in this process that six letters were sent to the lawyer representing the ministry before an answer was received. Parents were never contacted. Friends of the Rath family offered that child a home, a French-speaking home. So this child, who does not speak English, is in an English-speaking foster home for 33 days. The family is rightly concerned about isolation.

A little four-year-old girl who attended the police station on two occasions to be interviewed -- she's four years old -- underwent two medical examinations -- two interviews. There was a psychologist's visit without a lawyer or parent notification -- a breach of section 32. Over 33 days the mom had eight visits, each of two hours' duration -- after I was instructed that that mom had the opportunity to see that little girl every single day. The record shows that there were eight visits. The mom had no access to her child, her daughter, in the first nine days. Her mother was not accused of a single infraction yet was denied access for nine days.

The little person was returned to her family on June 2. Apparently the judge reached this decision in an hour and was not happy with the flaws in the process that had led up to this little person being separated from her family for 33 days. There's no remedy when people's lives have been violated to the extent that this family's life has been violated. There are no damages available. Someone has been damaged by this process -- the little girl, her mom, her dad. Can we make the case that there's negligence? Probably. But there's also no remedy. That is the wall that the member for Vancouver-Langara raised with you not an hour ago in this chamber -- that after that process has taken place, families hit the wall full-tilt in this province, and there is, frankly, no remedy.

[1615]

The family knows full well that there's no remedy. The minister, I'm sure, will get to her feet and say that there's no remedy.

The bottom line is that there were a number of issues that could have been resolved far sooner in the process -- far sooner, perhaps in a matter of a week, which is already a lifetime in the life of a four-year-old little girl. This one went on for 33 days -- a little, tiny person, a unilingual French-speaker living in an English-speaking foster home for 33 days. She's isolated. She cannot communicate. She's denied contact with her mom for the first nine days, after I was instructed that that mom had contact with that little girl every single day. Someone set out to provide inaccurate information or had been provided with inaccurate information. That troubles me, because I believed that if I put the questions fairly to the ministry, I would receive honest responses. So I'm hoping that the minister can explain how this process disenfranchised this little girl for more than 33 days. I await the response.

Hon. L. Boone: I never have discussed and I won't get into discussing individual cases in this chamber. The member can do that if she so chooses to put it on the record, but I do not consider it appropriate to get into debate on the pros and cons of this particular case.

L. Reid: The minister, I think, needs to go a little bit farther down the road. If this is not the chamber where she would wish this debate to happen, I can certainly explain to the minister that I have tried every appropriate avenue. I'm sure the staff will verify that that has indeed been the case. When those avenues do not produce the information, this is the avenue for that family. These are their parliament buildings. These are people who rely on government to treat them fairly. When they believe -- and when the record would suggest -- that they have been treated abundantly unfairly, there needs to be some recourse. I believe that the minister will again get to her feet and give the same response she gave to my colleague for Vancouver-Langara -- that there are all of these appeal processes.

The bottom line is -- and the minister has to recognize this, because it's vitally important -- that the damage has been done. People's lives have been ruined. Their characters have been smeared. Their children have been isolated. All of those things have long-term impacts on families. The minister can choose not to discuss it here. The bigger question, the bigger problem, the ministry must confront is: when these things go wrong, what is the remedy for parents? What is the remedy for people who today believe that they are absolutely held hostage by this ministry? I started my comments to this minister by saying that this is a human system. Mistakes will be made. When mistakes apparently have been made, what is the minister's response to that family? Where do they go from here?

[1620]

It's not to say that people don't appreciate that mistakes are made; they absolutely do. But I would invite this minister to consult with me more directly on this question, and if there are ways we can seek a remedy, I will certainly do that. But I have been seeking a remedy for many days -- many, many days -- on this question, which is the only reason this issue has not come before the Legislature until this moment. The fact that the minister does not appreciate that troubles me.

[ Page 13412 ]

I want to move, then, to the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. They talk about their vision statement -- what they would like to see for the child- and family-serving system. I would begin by simply asking the minister what her vision is for the Ministry for Children and Families in 1999.

Hon. L. Boone: We provided you with this business plan, and in this business plan is the vision. It says: "The ministry is currently involved in a consultative process with the service sector -- staff and other stakeholders -- to develop a vision statement. An approved vision statement will be available in late 1999."

L. Reid: I did not expect the minister to look to her staff or to pick up a piece of paper. I expected this minister to stand up and tell me what her vision is for the Ministry for Children and Families -- not that it's going to be available sometime this year. Let me put on the record what the Federation of Child and Family Services of British Columbia has said:

"The federation has a vision of a child- and family-serving system that is. . .respectful, both of the people who use the services and of the people who provide the services; constantly evolving to accommodate new knowledge and the changing needs of communities and their members; and fiscally responsible and accountable. The federation's vision is fundamentally different than what we have in B.C. today. We are committed to making the necessary changes. . . ."

"The federation believes that the child- and family-serving system must be. . .fully protected from budget cuts until the transition to a new, fully functioning system is complete; [and] under the stewardship of the Ministry for Children and Families, but developed through a true partnership with the communities and the community services sector."

Someone else who's raised some issues in the last number of days has been Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate for the province. I would begin my canvassing of that issue with a question to the minister in terms of. . . . As an officer of the Legislature, why is it that there is no vehicle for the child, youth and family advocate to make a report directly to the Legislature? Why was she not invited to make her report at the Bar of the Legislature?

Hon. L. Boone: I just want to go on. . . . You also have in this document, which shows you on the mission statement. . . . The mission statement very clearly shows what the mission for this ministry is. I want to read this in so that it's there in black and white. It's in our document here.

L. Reid: All this tells me is that you didn't know what it was.

Hon. L. Boone: No, the vision is there. The vision we are working on with others, in consultation with them. . . . The mission statement is: "Ministry for Children and Families must ensure a child-centred, integrated approach that promotes and protects the healthy development of children and youth while recognizing their lifelong attachment to family and community. Communities and clients must be an integral part of the work of this ministry. Quality assurance, accountability and openness are fundamental to its success."

As for why Joyce Preston was not invited to the Bar, I don't think anybody comes to the Bar to give their reports. It has never happened.

[1625]

Before I continue my remarks on the advocate's report, I would simply ask if the minister has read the 1998 annual report of the child, youth and family advocate for British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

L. Reid: Then she will know that the advocate has indicated that there are significant barriers to services for children. Indeed, she goes on to reference. . .her very first recommendation: "That the Ministry for Children and Families provide direct services that are accessible, responsive and timely, inclusive, child-centred, comprehensive and accountable." We would wish the minister to indicate why there are barriers to that level of service, and we would hope that the minister doesn't diminish this report yet again by attacking the messenger. Indeed this office is the voice of children in this province. It was created by this government. That's exactly why it was created. So the sentiments she shares are valid. What has the minister done with the information she's received to date from the children's advocate?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, we actually acted on a good portion of the advocate's report prior to it coming out. This report is dealing with last year. We've acted on many of her recommendations. When she talks about, for example, the services for youth, we've just recently made moves with regards to addictions for youth and the new services that are going in there. The additional services that we put in for sexually exploited youth, safe housing, etc., are just a few of the areas that we have in fact moved on. In terms of barriers, yes, there are some barriers. Many of those are directly to do with costs. I know that the advocate would like to see us have a blank cheque for the ministry. Hey, I'd like that too.

L. Reid: She has not said that.

Hon. L. Boone: She has said that. In the past she said that she would like to have it like Pharmacare and that services similar to that should be available. That's simply not in the cards. I'd love to have an open cheque so that we could provide services whenever we have a need for them. But that's not the way any ministry's budget operates. It operates on a budget basis, and we have to live within that budget. We do have cost pressures that affect the delivery of services. They have in fact pushed this ministry for two years in a row into a special warrant situation, with us having to go over our budget in order to meet some of those cost pressures in the community living sector and in the children-in-care area.

[ Page 13413 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I did not even receive Ms. Preston's report in advance of her publicizing the report. I read her recommendations after that and made my comments after I read her recommendations, but I had not totally read through the report until after that, because there just wasn't the opportunity. But I have read the whole report, and I did so that night.

L. Reid: So the record might show that when the minister left the chamber, having not read the report, her first response was that the messenger was wrong. She could in no way be right; she must be wrong. And the minister in fact based that contention on the fact that she had not read the report. I have some difficulty with that -- enormous difficulty. The minister will get to her feet and talk about cost pressures. The pressure today is priority pressures. And certainly when we talk about the other recommendations of this report -- and we will. . . .

[1630]

Recommendation No. 3: "That the Ministry for Children and Families, in 1999, provide a public report on the findings and outcomes of its quality assurance program." I would ask for a status report on that quality assurance program.

Hon. L. Boone: There were 57 offices that were audited in '98-99. In '99-2000, 73 offices are scheduled for audits. As well, in 1997 the ministry produced a document called: "Measuring Our Success: A Framework for Evaluating Population Outcomes." The document describes a framework within which the ministry can measure progress in achieving its strategic goals. The ministry is in the process of updating this document, and the ministry will be providing much of this information through its web site page by December 1999 and quarterly thereafter.

L. Reid: Do those audits of those offices include any kind of consumers' survey? Are the people who rely on that service asked their opinion about how best to improve practices?

Hon. L. Boone: No. They're practice audits against their practice standards.

L. Reid: I appreciate that. But these offices are designed to serve people, so it seems to me that the minister would be interested to learn whether or not people believe and have a level of satisfaction as a result of their dealings with this office. That seems to me something that's not uncommon in ministry practice. The Ministry of Labour and the Workers Compensation Board moved to that practice just over a year ago. They actually asked the clientele: "Has your dealing with us been satisfactory? Has it been helpful? Has it been useful?"

I simply want to know: if it's not in place today, does the plan include an opportunity to ask the clients of the Ministry for Children and Families about their level of satisfaction with the services that are available to them?

Hon. L. Boone: We did a client satisfaction report about a year or year and a half ago. It showed very high satisfaction levels amongst our clients. We can provide you with a copy of that report. As to whether we want to do that again, I think we'd have to look to see where our priorities are, to see whether this is something that we want to spend additional resources on at this particular time.

L. Reid: I will look forward to receiving that information, because it seems to me that best practice is only guided by whether or not it's useful to the people who receive it. If it has been 18 months since the question has been asked, most ministries. . . . And frankly, the workers compensation system of British Columbia asks that question routinely more than once a year -- i.e., they ask individuals who have contact with them. At the end of that contact, the person receives a card that they are asked to complete and mail back. It is an ongoing return of information.

I'm not understanding the minister when she says that it's somehow something they'll look at. To me this is continuous evaluation. It makes sense. These offices cannot operate in their best possible characterization if they don't have information from the people who they attempt to serve. And I think that the ministry would find that much of the frustration out there would be alleviated if people were simply asked for their opinions.

[1635]

Recommendation No. 4, "That section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act be proclaimed. . . " has certainly been on the books for quite some time. What is the reason that that section has not been proclaimed?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be addressing the concerns on that. We will be introducing amendments to the act this session to address this issue.

L. Reid: Recommendation No. 5: "That an assessment tool be developed to guide decision-making regarding the eligibility of older youth. Like the child protection risk assessment tool, this would lead to more consistent decisions being made about the provision of services." Certainly much has been spoken of the risk assessment model in terms of its validity, its efficacy and its ability to allow people to make

[ Page 13414 ]

The question is very specific: has the ministry designed a tool? Do they have plans in process to come back to this House, perhaps next session, and indicate what has been done on this very troubling area?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we were already acting on these things. A youth services assessment tool is currently being developed and will encompass safety and immediate-needs assessment, youth assessment, family assessment and alternatives. Services that will be considered with the assessment include family services, including parent-teen mediation; child protection referral, which is section 13; existing community-based support services and youth agreements. This is expected to be ready for use in November of 1999.

L. Reid: The minister has indicated that the target is November of 1999. When did this process begin?

Hon. L. Boone: January of this year.

L. Reid: Recommendation No. 6 of the office of the child, youth and family advocate for British Columbia: "That older youth, once qualified for financial support, receive benefits which are predetermined and outlined in regulations, regardless of which ministry administers the program." This one comes up repeatedly. There seems to be an unwillingness in the ministries to come together in some kind of interministerial collaboration so that this outcome -- which most folks say is the desired outcome -- is achieved more readily. If the minister could comment.

Hon. L. Boone: The financial services should be directed to the Ministry of Human Resources. We will be introducing in this Legislature, in this session, amendments regarding alternatives or additional services to older youth.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to seeing those amendments.

Recommendation No. 7: "That an early intervention fund be created as a public-private partnership and be separate from the budgets used to provide current services to children and youth." The Liberal Party policy is all about early intervention. I began my remarks yesterday evening talking about putting the dollars into the system when they will be most effective, and that is when children are young. The minister nodded yesterday evening.

[1640]

So the ministry, when it talks about fiscal prudence. . . . To wait only costs the system more money. That's a known fact. Not to provide these services when they would be the most effective means the service will have to be of greater duration, greater intensity, to achieve a similar result. That's strongly supported by research in the field of special education, and certainly it's something this ministry and this government have talked about in the past -- that they, indeed, support early intervention.

I know there are some pilot projects underway where those issues are being addressed. If the minister could give me her sense of whether or not she would support the creation of such a fund and, in addition, what her ministry has done in the area of early intervention.

Hon. L. Boone: I mentioned earlier that we do have a broad array of early interventions, and we've seen some of those results. I talked in the Legislature. . . . The reduction in SIDS death is 44 percent; low birth weight, 8 percent; infant mortality rate, 30.5 percent; teenage mother rate, 23.9 percent; mortality rate for five-to-14-year-olds, 14.3 percent; indirect alcohol-related deaths for children, 56.4 percent. So we do have a number of prevention programs, public health programs, child care programs, general family support programs, school-based support programs, services for children with special needs, family support for children with special needs, Healthy Kids, the school meal program -- there are a number of different programs that are all there that do early intervention.

As to whether or not we would support a special fund, I'd have to look at that. Special funds are the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, and those would be things that would have to be discussed very carefully with her. We're always grateful for extra dollars that we can get to put into prevention and early intervention, but as I said, those are issues that would be beyond this ministry's ability to make a decision on.

L. Reid: However, the minister is aware that when those services were brought from the Ministry of Health, they in fact became subject to budget cuts. Had those services stayed in the Ministry of Health, we would not be experiencing the cutbacks today. Families would not be experiencing the cutbacks; their children who rely on those services would not be experiencing the cutbacks. So if the minister can take that issue forward, perhaps, to the Minister of Finance: that if indeed the services are going to remain in this ministry, they be adequately funded. If it takes the creation of a different vehicle to meet that need, I would certainly welcome having a more elaborate discussion with the minister at some future point.

Recommendation No. 8: "That the supply of foster homes and staff residential facilities be increased in order to adequately meet the placement needs of the children and youth who are currently in care and to meet the projected future demand for placement." I would simply ask the minister to clarify for me the number of new foster homes in the province, because I have heard three different numbers in the last day and a half. I would ask the minister to put on the record the actual number.

Hon. L. Boone: The total number of foster homes have been increased by 747, and that includes relief and respite homes. We've increased the number of levels 1, 2 and 3 specialized homes by 306 and the number of aboriginal resources by 46, and we have opened approximately 50 new

[ Page 13415 ]

L. Reid: In terms of my information, I would simply ask the minister to give me the actual numbers in each of the categories she just read out. The addition of 747 new foster homes brings the total to X -- whatever the total happens to be in each of those areas. I want to know what the turnover has been. I'm always intrigued by new foster homes, but I also want to know how many people have left.

[1645]

L. Reid: What has the turnover been?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have the breakdown by area, but in this fiscal year 648 regular and specialized family care homes have closed.

L. Reid: Can you give that information for the relief and respite care homes as well -- and if not now, will I receive it as soon as it's available?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

L. Reid: Recommendation No. 9: "That the Ministry for Children and Families fully implement the results of the workload review project over the next three years, providing adequate staff to fulfil its mandate." When the advocate made her remarks, she basically indicated that she was at a loss for words out of sheer frustration in terms of the number of times she has brought these recommendations forward. So I would be pleased to learn what progress has been made in terms of adequately resourcing individuals who work on the front line.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, it gets a little frustrating, because we have increased staff. . . . The workload review model is very important to us, and we're working with the BCGEU to currently reduce the workload level. But 250 FTEs were approved for hiring starting in the last fiscal year as a result of the workload review project. Over 190 FTEs have been hired, and the recruitment and hiring process continues, as we are still interviewing and trying to find the appropriate. . . .

One of the problems we have, of course, is that we are unable to force individuals to move to particular areas. We still have our difficult spots where it's hard to get social workers to go. When you're in a situation where you're hiring a lot of new social workers and they in fact have a choice as to where they go, they often choose not to go to those areas where we traditionally have problems filling positions. That is a problem that we have and probably will always have as long as people don't like to live in places where it snows and we don't have a mild climate all year round.

L. Reid: My question was specifically to know whether or not individuals hired to provide those direct services are adequately resourced. The minister has responded that additional individuals have been hired. My question is still: do those individuals have the appropriate level of resource to do their jobs effectively?

I'll give the minister an example. As a school administrator, I could hire ten new teachers, but if I didn't have reasonable working space for them, supplies for their classrooms, supports for those children in their classrooms, I would not have solved the problem of an underresourced elementary school or secondary school, as the case may be. So the question is specific to resources. Has this ministry adequately resourced social workers -- front-line staff -- to work in the system? Not just adding new bodies -- the question is bigger than that.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we've had additional funding for computers, for space, so there have been additional funds put in to resource these individuals.

[1650]

Hon. L. Boone: We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know whether to listen to the left or to the right; I guess I'll go to the left. [Laughter.]

We recognize that they are important, and we do put. . . . That's why so much of our budget goes out to the contracted sector to provide services. That's why, in fact, we're putting $11 million more into providing services to those individuals -- so that we can give support to families. We recognize the difficulties out there in families getting the resources. As I said in my opening statement, we also know that if you put the dollars into supporting families so that they can keep their kids at home so that they're not in a crisis situation, then that's to all of our advantage. So we've allocated $11 million more this year for that.

L. Reid: This brings me to recommendation No. 10: "That the Ministry for Children and Families provide training for

[ Page 13416 ]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, we've acted on a number of things, and that's why I was saying that it's not true to say that we haven't done a lot of things. Competency and curriculum development for integrated case management was initiated last year, in consultation with service providers, and it will soon be completed. It is expected that approximately 500 people will receive the training in the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The children's advocate actually comments on and praises Looking After Children, which is an introduction we did on a pilot, and that's for inclusive planning for children and youth in government. That program will be expanded across government in September of 1999. That is something that Joyce Preston has indicated is a very positive thing, and she actually said that she hopes that we're implementing it. Well, we are implementing it provincewide in September.

[1655]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier -- and if you'd look back in the Blues, you'd see it -- Looking After Children was a pilot project. She's saying that we should be implementing it provincewide. That is a good program for planning for children. We are implementing it provincewide in September. I'm sure that by next year that you'll see an increase in the number of compliances and care plans that will be completed in accordance with Looking After Children.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. If the minister is saying "implementation provincewide in September," the implementation is targeted to be how many months long?

Hon. L. Boone: The training is starting in September, and as you can imagine, there's a lot of training. We've got a lot of workers out there doing these things. Once they've received the training, then they're expected to immediately implement it. Over a period of six months, we should have this fully implemented, but it will go on as people receive their training in it.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that response. That, by my calculation, would bring us up to early spring of next year.

Recommendation No. 11: did the Ministry for Children and Families provide comprehensive training for all supervisors, beginning in 1999? This, again, doesn't appear to be a new recommendation. This one seems to come forward. . . . What has the ministry done in terms of responding to this particular aspect?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry is providing several types of training for supervisors. In addition to ongoing clinical supervision training, supervisors will receive an integrated three-year training session to implement the Looking After Children comprehensive-plan-of-care model and to assist in planning for children and youth in care. The training is scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999 -- a half-day integrated orientation planning session regarding the use of condensed assessment, and the comprehensive plan of care schedule is to begin in the fall of 1999. A one-day skill-based training session regarding writing measurable outcomes is scheduled for the fall of 1999.

L. Reid: I look forward to receiving some information on what type of training those programs might actually engage individuals in.

Recommendation No. 12: "That the Ministry for Children and Families define integrated case management and provide in its budget forecasts the resources to allow the development to this approach in all communities of British Columbia. . . ." I wanted to put the recommendation on the record, but I believe we've canvassed the issue, in terms of the examples I gave in terms of resourcing front-line social workers more adequately than they are currently being resourced.

Recommendation 13: "That the Ministry for Children and Families make public the estimated budget required to address the essential service needs of children and youth in care and those with special needs, to provide adequate alcohol and drug services, and to provide adequate mental health services. This would be a needs-based budget." This one speaks to me very strongly, because I'm not clear how the ministry arrived at the $9.25 million that they indicate will be the new sum of money allocated to drug and alcohol programs in the province. What need did they hope to meet by settling on a figure of $9.25 million?

Hon. L. Boone: We hope to meet some of the needs out there that are being expressed by individuals and by some of the indications that we have in our local areas.

[1700]

L. Reid: At this stage in the debate, minister, we are attempting to understand what the need is. Can the minister provide -- perhaps not today, but very soon, I would hope -- the documentation that allows the minister to suggest that the needs budget in British Columbia for drug and alcohol services and for mental health services is $500 million? Is that what I heard the minister say?

[ Page 13417 ]

L. Reid: We are in fact on recommendation 13 of the office of the child, youth and family advocate. The question was very specific. It was: if the ministry understands the need in these programs to cost $500 million, where is the documentation that allowed the ministry to reach the conclusion that $500 million is the current need?

Hon. L. Boone: I already answered that.

L. Reid: No, the minister has not answered the question. The minister was asked to provide the documentation that allowed her to arrive at that sum of money. What I'm hearing the minister say, through the hesitations, is that perhaps the documentation that supports the $500 million is not available -- i.e., that there is not, today, a needs-based budget for the Ministry for Children and Families. That is the only distillation I can arrive at. For the minister to suggest that $9.25 million is an appropriate sum of money for drug and alcohol programs, and certainly to take great delight in reannouncing some of those beds many, many times. . . . I don't know, from what the minister has said, what need that is meeting. Is it 1 percent of the individuals on the wait-list in this province today for those services? Is it 10 percent? If the actual budget is $500 million, which the minister suggests to be the need, and the ministry is putting forward $9.25 million, that's a very small fraction. So if the minister wishes to address the issue and tell me that the work on a needs-based budget has not been done, I would appreciate knowing that.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I've never said that $500 million is what is required for addictions and for youth addictions. I've said that for everything -- the whole gamut of things -- it would be approximately $500 million. But that's to get rid of all the wait-lists for everything out there. The $9.7 million is the amount that was allocated by Treasury Board for us to deal with addictions. We do not have wait-lists for youth. In fact, there have been so few programs for youth in this province that there's probably not even an opportunity to put people on wait-lists. There was virtually nothing anywhere else, except for the lower mainland and the Island, where they had a few beds. But there's no. . . . You don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that there are needs out there throughout the province and that we do need to have services for youth beyond the lower mainland.

[1705]

L. Reid: The point that I want to leave this minister with is basically whether or not she can verify the current need in the province to satisfy all the wait-lists under the Ministry for Children and Families and whether or not she can verify the amount, which she raised in this debate, of $500 million. Is there a baseline discussion, or is that number simply speculation on the part of this minister?

Hon. L. Boone: This is the third time I've told you that this is based on our wait-lists. We can give you a rough outline of the wait-lists that are there, but it's based on the wait-lists. Our budget is not based on a needs budget, and I would urge you to get back to our actual budget so that we can discuss that.

L. Reid: I will take the minister up on her offer to receive that information. I would very much appreciate a cost-benefit analysis -- what the wait-list says today and where each of those placements will be costed out. From the minister's own comment, once that is done, I will somehow end up with a document that indicates the overall need as $500 million. I will look forward to receiving that.

Recommendation No. 14: "That government commit to a multi-year implementation plan to address these essential service needs." Again, I think this doesn't just speak to the Ministry for Children and Families. It speaks to the Ministry of Health; it speaks to the Ministry of Education. The school and medical years and this ministry year don't coincide with the fiscal year of this government. They just don't -- October 1 to September 30; September 1 to June 30. They don't coincide, so people have basically spent money in those ministries on direct, front-line service delivery before they know whether those dollars are available to them.

Some kind of multi-year commitment that speaks to the individuals who provide these services, knowing -- and I speak as a school administrator -- this September what you can offer next September, without learning in June. . . . It's the same thing for this ministry, and that is why I was so adamant this morning about clawing back the contracted sector; those dollars have been spent in lots of cases. So this recommendation is about multi-year funding. Can we make some commitment on a multi-year basis? I would certainly put that forward for the ministry's consideration.

The last recommendation is: "That the Ministry for Children and Families be exempt from any governmentwide fiscal restraint program in relation to the provision of essential services for children and youth in government care." The ministry has heard me speak on this issue many times in the last day and a half -- many times in the last year. When it comes to the necessity and the critical need for speech and language services, occupational services, physiotherapy services, behavioural interventions. . . . Those are all essential services for children at that time in their life. They're not an essential service that can be deferred for a year or two.

This recommendation, I believe, needs to be addressed by this ministry, because it's a priority question. The minister did not accept my contention this morning that this government has made a bunch of different choices that don't reflect well on children. The bottom line is that that's a fact. There are other areas under this government that receive far more support financially than children. It's a choice the government has made. The Minister of Finance got on her feet repeatedly and said: "This budget is about choices." The point I made this morning is as valid this afternoon. When it comes to children, they're way down the list.

If I can leave the minister with any commentary, it is that this is an issue where the ministry has to decide if they're spending the dollars when these children are young. They will spend far more significant dollars as these children age in a system that's not necessarily responsive to their needs. Will the minister comment?

[ Page 13418 ]

With regard to whether we should be exempt from any fiscal. . . . That's not something that this ministry can determine. Treasury Board does those determinations, and in fact we have been exempt from cuts. There are only three ministries in government that received additional funds, an increase, and they are Education, Health, and Children and Families. Each of those ministries, both Education and Health, service children. The children that are serviced in Health. . . . Just yesterday we saw that there's a large increase going to the Children's Hospital. So we have made commitments to service children and families in this province.

When you talk about the choices, the choices are there in black and white for everybody to see. It is not a. . . . I mean, this is a very sound decision made to protect the services, to keep the dollars and to make increases on those dollars. I've been in a ministry that had cuts, and I can tell you that a 4 percent increase -- although it is difficult, because some of the pressures -- is not the 19 percent decrease in actual funding that I got when I was in Highways. I know the difference between having a cut and having funding pressures out there. So the choices are there.

Earlier today I talked to you about. . . . You mentioned some of the choices with regard to how you spend the money. I pointed out to you that, in fact, the moneys that you talk about all the time -- the overruns on the fast ferries -- are not areas that affect the overall budget of ministries. They are not ministry budgets; they are not part of the deficit; they are not part of this area.

If you, hon. member, God forbid, ever get an opportunity to implement your balanced budget and make those massive cuts that you are talking about, you will have to make those cuts from the ministry budget. You will not be able to take those cuts from the Crown corporations or those things, because those are not the things that contribute to the deficit of the province. You will be cutting these ministries; you will be cutting education; you will be cutting health care; you will be cutting this ministry's budget -- because you have no opportunity to find dollars of that magnitude anywhere else in those budgets to make up the three billion dollars' worth of cuts that you, in that party over there, have advocated. It is a very interesting concept that you have -- that you figure you can continue to spend and cut at the same time. Only a Liberal opposition would think that you can cut taxes everywhere -- that you can balance the budget, decrease spending and still provide more services. Those kinds of economics, hon. member, simply don't work.

[1710]

In terms of her misguided notion that somehow these are ministry dollars and not always taxpayer dollars, it always is taxpayer money. It doesn't magically become something else because this government has made some choices to place those dollars in particular columns in the ledger.

In terms of the. . . . And there are many of your ministry today who deliver speech and language services, deliver physiotherapy, deliver occupational therapy. Their contention is that if those services were still in Health, they would not be subject to cuts. That is the intention of this recommendation. Will this minister commit to delivering that level of service -- not to move it around? If you can't champion the cause, move it back to Health -- that's the contention. In terms of services, these families are entitled to those services, not to some diatribe about highways. These are kids; these are people's children. They are more important -- more of a priority in terms of how these dollars are spent.

In terms of the report, I don't believe the advocate's report has fallen on fertile ground. I don't believe the minister spent a great deal of time reading it before she waxed on about the advocate being wrong. By her own admission, she had not read the report before she left the Legislature and attacked the messenger. That is fundamentally inappropriate for the severity of the issues confronting this ministry. This person is an officer of the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. This person was appointed by this House to be the voice of children. To discount and to ridicule this report -- to be cavalier in the response. . . . It troubles me. It's offensive to me as a parliamentarian. The fact that the minister continues to do it. . . . At some point when people are in a hole, they should stop digging.

[1715]

The ministry was created to assist families, not to defend the actions of government in other areas where there are ministers who have far more access to dollars, far more legitimacy at the Treasury Board table, obviously, to secure those funds. Then to come here and attack the messenger. . . . This report is valid. This is not new information. I thank the children's advocate for having brought the report forward, and I would hope that the minister can get to her feet and thank the advocate today, because she has taken no opportunity to express any appreciation for the work that has gone into the creation of this report to date.

Hon. L. Boone: Because I disagree with the advocate and her recommendations. . . . Not all of her recommendations, as I've said. We have acted on her recommendations. But her decisions with regard to. . . . Her condemnation of the ministry as a whole I cannot accept; I cannot accept that. We will take her recommendations very carefully; we have already done so. We took her recommendations last year; we've acted on them. We are taking her recommendations this year; we will act on them. But I will not accept her condemnation of the ministry as a whole -- that it is something that has not happened anywhere.

I also have to ask you how on earth you figure you are going to deliver more services when the Liberal opposition is

[ Page 13419 ]

L. Stephens: I want to talk about the secure care report. But before I do, I want to talk a little bit about what the minister has just said.

I think it's clear from the minister's statements that she really doesn't have the faintest idea of what's required. Obviously, her entire government. . . . If they did, they would know how you can balance a budget. They would know how you can provide services. They would know how you can avoid the kind of catastrophic debt that this province is in at the moment. It's $7 million a day for interest payments. What could this government do with $7 million a day for children's services in this province? I would suggest there's a lot that could be done to fix that ministry, which is in total chaos. It doesn't matter who you talk to, what region of the province that you talk to, what community in the province that you talk to about which group is supposed to receive services from that ministry. They're all telling you the same thing: there's total, abject chaos and a minister that either knows nothing about what is happening or doesn't care. Now, that's what people are saying out there. If the minister doesn't know that, it's another black mark against her and her ministry. Everywhere you look and every person you speak to. . . .

[1720]

The ministry conducted a secure care study, the secure care working group. This is an issue that has come to the forefront more and more. I have personally had in my constituency office three families who have come to me and said: "We don't know what we can do with this child. The ministry isn't helping us. There only seems to be two avenues: we can sign this child into the care of the ministry, or we can hope or pray that they get into trouble with the law, and then they're involved in the criminal justice system. Or somehow they can be committed under the Mental Health Act. But there's nothing that the ministry or anyone else can do to help me with this child."

The minister could perhaps start by giving the committee an overview of this secure care report, and advising where it is in her ministry at this point. What is she doing about it? Has she made any decisions on the recommendations that are contained in it?

Hon. L. Boone: The secure care project team will be providing me with the results of its review of the working group's recommendations and submissions that were made to the project team by the beginning of July. We will consider the options that are brought to us, and then we'll be making an announcement as to how we intend to proceed with servicing those high-risk youth.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could tell the committee whether or not she believes that there should be a secure care option for high-risk youth.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll be looking at the recommendations very carefully and making decisions once I get the recommendations. We have to consider the treatment goals, the review of the legal and the civil liberty issues -- these are some of the things that, in fact, the advocate was talking about, in terms of some of the services for youth and the addictions. We were very pleased that we were able to announce prior to her report, actually, that we are providing more services there. I do thank her for her report. As I said, I think that we take all of her recommendations very seriously. We may have a disagreement as to our opinion with regards to the ministry as a whole, but the recommendations that she has brought forward to us are ones that we review very carefully. As I said, when we've shown that we've already acted on a number of her recommendations from the past, I think that shows that we take her recommendations and are prepared to move on them. And we will be moving on them. But this one, the secure care one. . . . We need to get the recommendations. I will be reviewing that and making a decision later.

[1725]

Hon. L. Boone: I already advised the House and advised the province, in fact, that we are enhancing those detox facilities, that we are enhancing the residential treatment centres. Those were some of the reasons that we needed to do that, because we needed to make sure that there were services there for those children, for those very high-risk youths. That's why we're moving towards youth agreements, so that we can move some of those kids into some of those services and get some support for those children before they get into trouble or before they reach a desperate situation. By this time next year, we will have treatment facilities throughout the province,

[ Page 13420 ]

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could tell the committee whether or not, in this coming year -- which is the budget estimates that we're speaking of right now -- the need for the continuum of care that has been identified. . .whether in fact that is going to be something that the ministry will be implementing, with prevention at the front end and secure care at the top end.

Hon. L. Boone: Nice try. You're trying to get me to commit to the secure care already. I already said I'll wait for that report to come down, but we are looking at a continuum to try and get the prevention in there. We're looking at the treatment and how we move on the secure treatment. We will be moving on the recommendations. How we move on those will be determined in the next few months.

L. Stephens: Could the minister comment on whether or not her ministry is looking at alternatives and secure care options and models in other parts of Canada and the United States?

Hon. L. Boone: When we had the secure care. . .we actually went to Alberta. Tim Stevenson went to Alberta and he went to Montreal to look at their models that they have there. That was incorporated into the recommendations that came.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry know how many children that have been in foster care that are now living on the streets? Does the ministry know how many children in foster care are living on the streets?

Hon. L. Boone: It goes up and down. Apparently, out of 10,000 children in care, between 100 and 150 of those may go AWOL. They may or may not be on the streets: they may be living with friends, they may be somewhere else. They have gone away from the care, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are living on the streets.

[1730]

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that information. We'll get that for you -- okay?

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could talk about whether or not her ministry is able to provide children in the care of the ministry with diagnostic services. Children who come to the ministry obviously are very troubled. So the question is: does the ministry do an analysis or a diagnosis of these children who come to the ministry for whatever reason, and try to determine what their needs are?

Hon. L. Boone: The reason I couldn't give you some of the numbers is because a great many of the children that are in care have behavioral problems -- have some problems -- but they're not diagnostic. When children do come into care there is a risk assessment done to determine. . . . If they are in need of mental health services, they do go through the mental health program diagnostic treatment. They may, in fact, get the treatment through, you know, outside -- they don't necessarily have to be in care in order to receive those treatments. Many times family members bring their child in as well.

L. Stephens: Is it the ministry line staff that do the risk assessments initially?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

L. Stephens: What kind of qualifications do these individuals have to try and determine whether or not a child needs mental health services or some other kind of counselling? I'm thinking of FAS and FAE children who have these kinds of issues to deal with. My understanding is that they're very, very common for a lot of the children who come into the care of the ministry. So what kind of professional clinical diagnosis is there for these kids to make sure that they don't slip through the cracks? I mean, we hear time after time where there are kids out in the street and that many of the problems that they have are in fact to do with mental health, and they have never had the opportunity to receive treatment.

Hon. L. Boone: The risk assessment is done by our child protection workers, and they are social workers or people with similar backgrounds, psychologists. . . . There's a degree in education, there's a degree in psych with clinical counselling, and there's child and youth care. So they are skilled people that are making the initial assessment, but they do not do the clinical assessment. They are referred to mental health services to do a clinical assessment. Client services in mental health services include intake and referral, specialized assessment treatment, case planning, case consultation and ongoing management for the following population, and that's if they have life-threatening conditions, biologically based problems, mental illness. Biologically based problems would include FAS, which you were talking about, psychological disorders, survivors of abuse and trauma, depression, anxiety disorders, severe behavioral disorders. Those are the types of individuals that would be referred for assessment.

[1735]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we are working with mental health services to develop a continuum of those services there. We also have some accomplishments in '98-99. We will have coming in -- in the new beds -- dual-diagnosis beds for youth in the treatment of alcohol and mental disorders, so that's a first in. . . . Is it in any other jurisdiction? I don't know if any other jurisdiction does that or not. But it's certainly a first in this province.

We also have a manual for the best practices in youth suicide prevention and a provincial framework for youth suicide risk prevention. That was distributed to communities

[ Page 13421 ]

L. Stephens: During the study that was done on the secure care report, one of the things that had been identified was the role of parents and how the parents felt -- the fact that they felt powerless, that there wasn't anything they could do to protect their children. I wonder if the minister could talk about some of the legislation that is in place that could be used to allow those parents what many of them believe are their legal rights and responsibilities, as parents, to their children.

Hon. L. Boone: That's some of the information that we're going to be getting, as to the existing legislation -- how we can use that and if it needs to be improved so that we can move on some of the recommendations of the secure care working group.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could clarify for me why section 9 -- I believe it is -- of the Child, Youth and Community Service Act has not been proclaimed.

Hon. L. Boone: I already mentioned this earlier. We are bringing in some changes in legislation to deal with that section.

[1740]

The other issue I want to talk about is the issue of child prostitution. There was the International Summit of Sexually Exploited Youth in Victoria in March of last year that was very informative, I thought. It was certainly something that had a great deal of legitimacy, because it involved young people that were involved in prostitution. A number of recommendations came forward from that. They were: prevention; risk management or minimization; emergencies, crisis intervention and exiting; healing; and public attitudes. I wonder if the minister could talk about what the ministry is going to be doing around youth and the sexual exploitation of youth.

Hon. L. Boone: This is something that both I and the Attorney General take very seriously. In fact, we have moved to bring in some safe housing for sexually exploited youth so that they have a safe place to go to. The Attorney is also looking at some areas and bringing in some provisions, and we're working with the Attorney General to, hopefully, bring in some legislation this fall to try and find ways of addressing the issue around pimps and johns, etc. That's something that we're working on in consultation with the Attorney General.

L. Stephens: Well, one of the things that I hope is happening is that your ministry and the Attorney General are lobbying the federal government to change the age of consent from 14 to -- I would like -- 18; but I would settle for 16. I think that one of the biggest problems is the age of consent. A 14-year-old is not capable of making a decision on whether or not they want to be a prostitute or want to live on the street. So that's one recommendation that I hope the minister would take back to the Attorney General and members of her ministry.

The issue of harm reduction. Is this something that the minister is embracing? Does the minister embrace the concept of harm reduction?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry does embrace the concept of harm reduction. In fact, we just -- I don't know when it was; in February, I think it was -- announced new alcohol and drug programs in the Nanaimo area. So we do embrace the idea of harm reduction. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is working with the city of Vancouver and with the federal government on the UDA to deal with some of the issues in the downtown east side, and they're looking very seriously at how and if they can do harm reduction in those areas there. It's in all of our interests if we can not just move people out of addictions, but reduce the harm that's caused by those individuals. So yes, we do embrace harm reduction.

Noting the hour, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

D. Jarvis: I rise once again. Let's hope that the fellow that was sitting here earlier this afternoon behaves himself. [Laughter.]

I want to ask some questions of the minister about substance abuse in the aspect of families and children. Now, I want to make a few comments to start with, and I hope the minister takes them with the meaning that they have and doesn't get too upset with it, because I really am interested in this subject. In my own family alone I can count, in the last ten years, where I have had, in my close relatives. . . . I have a big family; I have four generations born in Vancouver, so we're spread out. But I've had 11 people die of either alcohol or drug abuse in the last ten years, and as you start going into my friends and acquaintances over the years, it's. . . . As you can appreciate, it affects everyone and it's everywhere around us. It's not necessarily. . . . You know, you keep hearing stories all the time where it's the people from out of town who are coming into the big cities, but it's all around us all the time.

I had been touring around a few places when I was asked to come in and assist the member for Richmond East in regards to Children and Families. So I've travelled around to different places in the last month, and it is quite apparent that everywhere I go, the people there are not happy with the way the ministry is now set up. You hear all the expressions -- I think the chaos and all the rest of it going on. It is a concern in the sense that if the majority of the people that are out on the streets and that are doing the work and/or are doing the contracting. . . . If they're not happy and they're not satisfied that things are happening the way they should be happening, then there obviously is a problem.

Times are changing rapidly in this world, and we have to adjust to that. It might appear that the Gove report itself was a

[ Page 13422 ]

Now, I know the ministry has said that there's no way that's going to change, so then something else must change inside. I think that since '95 you've had three structural changes in the ministry, and it went up into 20 regions. And there are rumours around that it again might be changed. Well, it may be changed for the better. Who knows? I don't know what's happening, but I'll probably ask the minister if she has any thoughts of changing the structure again, so that perhaps the problems that these people see in front of them will be allayed to some degree.

[1845]

I notice the member pointed out here that the 20 regions you have are down to 11 now. I think it's actually 21 -- isn't this area here one region as well? Anyway, that's beyond the. . . . It's not necessary to go into that one. But if it's down to 11, has the ministry given any consideration to making changes in that structure? I wonder if she could answer that.

Hon. L. Boone: I certainly recognize the concerns that the member raised about the reorganization and bringing, in particular, adult addictions into the ministry. There were concerns out there. There were concerns from individuals that staff may use this as a means for taking away their kids -- that if they came and acknowledged their addiction problems, they would have their kids removed. We're working on those areas to make sure that they recognize that the integration of services. . . . It's in all of our best interests to have individuals -- men or women who have kids -- have their addictions seen to. I think we are working through some of those problems. We still have to deal with some of the concerns that staff have out there, and we're working on those.

But we haven't reduced the number of services. We have, in fact, increased the number of services, and we've focused on areas that may not have been addressed if the ministry had not been there: Peardonville House, with increasing the number of beds for mom and tots; the new moms and tots program in Prince George, which will be built there in conjunction with the replacement of the detox in Prince George. Now we have a mobile service, until we get the actual mom and tots built, that's going throughout the north to service women with their kids, providing day care for their kids as well. We have introduced some new programs. We're actually a leading light in those areas. No place else actually provides services to women and provides day care and support for their kids at the same time.

As I said, I recognize the concerns that the individuals have out there. We're working on those things. But I would also like to put to rest. . . . We are not considering another reorganization. I jokingly said, in my speech to the foster parents associations, that we were actually looking at another reorganization. There was an audible "Oh!" and I said: "Just kidding." But we are not looking at another reorganization, because it has been very stressful on everybody involved -- those that deal with the ministry as well as staff.

D. Jarvis: You learn to keep your mouth shut sometimes, because sometimes, I guess, when you make statements, like rumours, they start and spread down the line.

But it seems sort of apparent to a lot of people out there that the system isn't working, no matter how much money you throw into it or how many competent people you throw into the system. It's not an osmotic process, unfortunately. But the workers themselves are visibly upset. I can see that they can't see any reason, at this time, why there should be any difference -- why this ministry should be separated from Health when it comes to substance abuse. I guess time will tell what happens on that, and let's hope it's to the betterment of everyone.

[1850]

On that same instance, I want to ask the minister some questions with regards to detox and maybe talk about the number of beds available for both adults and youth. If she could possibly tell me. . . . I guess we have to go to the latest. . . . I haven't got it here at the moment, but it's the latest statement she put out. It states that she was going to put $9.25 million into 17 youth detox beds and 16 residential services beds, etc. I'm wondering if she can explain to me -- I'm having difficulty myself, and no one seems to know -- what the difference is between a detox treatment bed and detox services.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: If I could go further, in your backgrounder to your press release of last week. . . . I haven't got the date on it, but it shows where all the regional funding is going. I want to get some kind of a breakdown. It talks about six youth residential detox treatment beds. Then it talks about treatment services and all the rest of it. Is there a difference?

Hon. L. Boone: Detox is withdrawal management, and that assists individuals to be free of an intoxication substance before undertaking counselling. Residential treatment is short-term, intensive group counselling and education for adults and youth with serious substance misuse issues and whose living arrangements do not provide the stability to support attending treatment in a non-residential setting. Day treatment programs are provided to youth and adults with serious substance misuse issues who require more intensive treatment as part of their treatment plan but do not require additional supports for residential services. Then there are out-patient services, which provide youth, adults and families seeking

[ Page 13423 ]

D. Jarvis: If the minister or her staff have that backgrounder close by or have a list of. . . . I look at this report which she sent out about the bed count that was occurring, in the sense that there were six youth resident detox treatment beds going into Terrace, Fort St. John and Williams Lake.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Six each, and five detox treatment service beds going into the Okanagan, six into Nanaimo and six into Victoria. I'm trying to relate to the fact that when I start adding them all up. . . . Your backgrounder says there are 75 beds, but I can only see 65 beds as a result of what's issued in this. Now, I'll read it all out again, if that's any help to you.

Hon. L. Boone: If you look at the backgrounder, it also has a little star there by the 16 youth residential services. It includes the nine beds that were previously announced in Prince George. So that's included in the new beds.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: No. Sorry -- the little star is the 27. The two stars include six new dual-diagnosis beds in that 16.

[1855]

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I'm counting that already in New Westminster. If you add that up, it's. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know. We'll get people to add those things up. If you want to ask me another question, rather than wasting our time here adding things up, hon. member. . . .

D. Jarvis: We never waste time in here; this is the provincial Parliament.

I was wondering if the minister could possibly tell us. . . . Again, referring to the nine beds that have the little asterisks beside them, they were announced last year, I assume. Have they been completed? Are they available now?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they're not. They are going to be built in conjunction with the detox that is being replaced in Prince George. They're just concluding discussions with the hospital board, and I think they've got the okay to actually rebuild on the hospital grounds there -- the current detox is on hospital grounds. So once everything is okay and they go to tendering and all that kind of stuff, they will be built in conjunction with the adult detox -- separated from them but on the same site as the adult detox.

D. Jarvis: So in this announcement. . . . These will all be built and ready to go. . . . Can the minister give me a ballpark date? Are we looking at the fall, next spring, or two years from now -- when they're going to be announced again?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, some of them are actually being built, and some of them are not going to be built. There are dollars there, but they will be able to purchase a house, in which case they can be up and running faster. If there are no resources available, and they actually have to build something, then that may take a little longer, but our goal is to get them up and going just as soon as we can.

D. Jarvis: I'm wondering if the minister can give me an idea as to how she will staff these premises. Are they going to be utilizing staff within the ministry now, or are you going out to hire more staff?

Hon. L. Boone: These will be contracts similar to what we already do, contracts that are tendered.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister explain to me roughly what this contract consists of? The six new beds that are going into Williams Lake, say. . . . Are you going to require that housing be built for all of these, or are you going to be buying existing premises and installing them? Is this all going to be built from square one?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, there's $500,000 allocated as capital dollars for this project. Once we get the contracts tendered, we will be determining how we can meet these needs. If there are appropriate facilities there already, then maybe we won't have to build. But if we do have to build, then we will do so. We've got the capital dollars there. Those will be determined once we actually start to look for a site and look for a place.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister please give us some information with regard to safe houses? How many safe houses for adults and for youth are there under her ministry?

[1900]

D. Jarvis: I assume that those 11 are operating at this point. These aren't the ones you are building, or. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: The six are operational, of course. The new ones -- not all of them are up and running. I think the contracts have been given to the organizations, and they should be up and running very shortly, I would think.

D. Jarvis: I believe that I read a report or something that there were about 1,200 children under the care of the ministry, in the detox end of it, over last year. I wonder if the minister could tell me if that has changed at all this year. Is it down or up?

Hon. L. Boone: We've got the dollars and the beds, but as to the numbers that went through last year compared to the year before, we'll get those numbers for you and get them to you later on, if that's okay, hon. member.

[ Page 13424 ]

[1905]

D. Jarvis: To follow up further on that, could the minister tell me if. . . ? I assume that this is a provincial wait-list rather than just a regional one or a specific area of the lower mainland. I assume that they're a transient group and that they're travelling around all over the place. Is that the way it's set up, the way your records are kept? Is that on a provincial basis or a specific regional basis?

Hon. L. Boone: As we currently only have provincial resources, we do not have any regional. . . . Literally there are no regional resources for youth residential treatment outside Victoria and Vancouver. They would be gathered by the region and submitted. It would be a provincial wait-list for places like Peak House, for example.

D. Jarvis: I assume with Peak House it would be. . . . I think it only holds six people, does it not? Maybe I'll go off on a tangent and ask. . . . Originally Peak House was started by. . . . As a matter of fact, one of the founders was our member for Vancouver-Langara. I was told that it was originally set up for about 15 or 16 children. It has since changed and is now down to about six, I believe. Can the minister answer that question?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know whether that's true or not, but I've been there, and I haven't seen any 15 beds in that house. I would question whether they were there, but that was a long time ago. I don't know whether they were or not.

D. Jarvis: I think it is true that the reason there weren't any more than six beds was that it has been reduced down to six. But I was just wondering if there was any reason why the ministry would have these houses, like Peak House for example, and only have a limited number of. . . . Do they intend to stay at the six level? Mostly I see where your housing for detox beds is six, five, four. Why wouldn't the ministry try to expand that into -- I hate to say institution -- more accommodation when there's such a demand? And the cost of building a premise wouldn't be that much more than if you just build one for holding six in another town and another six in another town.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess if you look hard enough, you eventually find it. When it opened 11 years ago, Peak House did have double the capacity, but it was located in a larger family house -- a larger facility. I don't know if it was a family house or not, but it was a larger facility.

Pre-MCF, the Ministry of Health closed the assessment program with the intent to redirect the funds to the regions to provide more addiction assessment and treatment beds in other regions, and that didn't occur. We are now doing that by moving those beds out into the regions. Those that are in Vancouver. . . . We do have new beds going into the Vancouver area, but clearly those in Vancouver also recognize that it helps them to have regional resources. If you don't have the resources in the region, everybody then has to siphon down to the lower mainland for services. By moving the services out to the regions, you in fact free up those beds in the lower mainland. But there are more beds going into Vancouver in addition to the ones that are going into the regions.

[1910]

Hon. L. Boone: I announced the lower mainland's at the same time as everybody else's. The same things hold true. We will work with the regions to get them up and going just as fast as we can. But in Vancouver, there are capital dollars for a ten-bed youth detox facility, five residential detox treatment beds for aboriginal youth and five residential services beds linked to aboriginal youth justice for youth detox beds for the downtown east side.

In Surrey, we have five youth residential treatment beds for females, linked to youth justice and two new youth residential detox treatment beds for females. In New Westminster we've got the six dual-diagnosis youth residential services beds, a youth day treatment program and one family/youth counselling program. In Burnaby, we've got a youth day treatment program linked to forensic and youth justice, three beds for youth detox linked to youth justice. And in Maple Ridge we've got one family/youth counselling position.

There is a tremendous increase in resources that will be available in the lower mainland in addition to the services that are going throughout the province, so this is a major, major expansion in services for youth addictions.

D. Jarvis: It wasn't too long ago that you reduced it from 11 or 12 down to six, and now we're going to have an expansion. You can never win -- no, you can't. I don't know whose recommendation it was to make those services less.

Can you tell me, then, because you were talking about this: what is the difference between. . . ? I asked you before about the detox treatment bed and short-term detox. What do you mean by "linked to youth justice"? Is there any different definition?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are beds that are dedicated to kids who are in the court system or in the probation system -- links to those systems there.

D. Jarvis: Is there a large call for youth justice beds versus an ordinary detox centre?

Hon. L. Boone: Oh yes. I think it's fairly easy to say that the majority of the kids that get into trouble with the law do have some kind of addiction problem. I don't know which came first -- whether the addiction problem came first or the law problem -- but sometimes they get into trouble with the law because of their addiction, in order to feed their habits. There is definitely a strong connection there.

D. Jarvis: In the lower mainland here, then, we're going to have approximately 27 beds, plus or minus that missing 10.

[ Page 13425 ]

Of the 20-odd beds that are going to be put into service, there are only eight -- about one-third of them -- that are going to be for youth justice. You've got three going into Burnaby and five into Surrey. You say that the majority of the children coming through the ministry have been through the courts. I assume that these beds will be used only on the premise that the court orders a youth to get treatment. Or is it ones that are waiting to go into court? Can the minister explain what. . . ?

[1915]

Recently there was a judge, if you will remember correctly, who was very critical of the ministry, saying that he would have liked to refer a youth to a treatment program but there wasn't one for him to go into, so he had to order this child into a corrections institution. It could be all of the above; they could be used in order to prevent somebody going into jail; they could be used by probation officers. So all the above could be used there.

D. Jarvis: Those five that I have mentioned -- there are eight beds in Burnaby and Surrey -- are specifically for a situation where the individual is either going into court or has been ordered into a detox centre by the courts. Why do you discern between them as beds linked to youth justice?

Hon. L. Boone: The nine beds at Exodus are currently being used entirely by the courts, and there is a need there for us to have beds for the courts to use so that judges have some options in terms of providing services to youths rather than putting them into a youth detention centre.

D. Jarvis: The four youth detox beds for the downtown east side. . . . Is that -- how would I put it? -- going to be an addition to any other facilities there are now, or is it going to be a new facility completely. . . ?

Hon. L. Boone: It's expanding what they're delivering now.

D. Jarvis: You mention in your press release that you put in $500,000 for capital costs for buildings. Could the minister tell me what they estimate -- or have they got a specific figure? -- it's going to cost for the contracts themselves this coming year? I mean, you're putting in 70-odd new beds. What's it going to cost the ministry, on top of. . . ?

Hon. L. Boone: If you look at the backgrounder there, it has $1.4 million as capital dollars and then, underneath that, is $550,000, $500,000, $400,000 -- those are the program dollars to deliver those programs.

[1920]

Hon. L. Boone: A very small number of adults; we're not sure on those. . . . Ten youth were sent out of the province for treatment last year, and this was to provide specialized residential addiction services for aboriginal youth. That's one of the driving forces and one of the reasons why we're increasing the number of residential beds in the province this year -- so that we don't in fact have to send our youth out of the province to receive treatment. Until such time. . . . This was the number from last year -- ten.

C. Hansen: In the area of adults, would the minister undertake to get me that information and advise me in terms of how many, in addition to the ten, would have been treated outside of the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I will get that. I just want to read in so that we don't have to give this back. We've managed to find. . . . If we wait long enough, eventually all comes to he who waits -- and she who waits.

The wait-list for alcohol and drug services for adults is: day treatment -- approximately 20 to 30 are on that wait-list, and it's a one- to two-month wait; detox services -- there's a very small wait-list, about zero to five days; out-patient counselling has interim supports that are put in place for those, and there is a two-week to six-month wait; residential treatment has 200 on the wait-list and a zero to four-month wait; supportive recovery has 20 to 50 on a wait-list and a zero-to-four-month wait; alcohol and drug services for youth day treatment -- supports are available, and we don't have a wait-list there; detox services has 20 on the wait-list and zero to five days' length of wait; out-patient counselling has interim supports in place for individuals, so we don't have a wait-list, and a two-to-one-month length of wait before they get full out-patient counselling; residential treatment for youth is 80 to 100 on the wait-list, and that takes one to eight months.

C. Hansen: I'm sure my colleagues appreciate that update on the wait-lists. Going back to the out-of-province treatment, could the minister advise us as to who funds out-of-province treatment? Is it the ministry directly, or is it through MSP?

[1925]

C. Hansen: So I gather from that that there's not an MSP involvement in that kind of treatment, then. Okay.

I want to ask the minister about the status of delivery of alcohol and drug programs through the various health authorities in British Columbia. I know there has been some

[ Page 13426 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We aren't actually in consultation with regional health boards to move the services over to them. I think that anybody who's been in this ministry for a while knows that there's been a lot of upheaval going around, and we'd like to have a little bit of stability there. Some health boards have, in fact, bid to deliver alcohol and drug services in their regions when we put a contract out to tender. And we have been in discussions with the Vancouver-Richmond health board all around the UDA, looking at how to deliver services. The urban development agreement is pulling together the city, the health board and the federal government to try to deal with the very intense problems that the downtown east side has. So we've been in discussions with them, but we haven't actually said that we're handing everything over. We haven't made those agreements with anybody, but clearly the downtown east side is a very special area, and we all need to work cooperatively to see how we can pull our resources together to address the very real problems they have down there.

C. Hansen: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I think the way she summed up the downtown east side is true. It really does require that kind of collaborative effort.

Is the urban development agreement a formalized agreement involving just the city of Vancouver? Or is it broader than that? I guess my other question. . . . I haven't heard of that document before, and I'm wondering if that is an agreement that she could share with us.

[1930]

C. Hansen: Just as a final question, before I turn it back to my colleague. I gather that there are some around the Vancouver-Richmond region who believe that the involvement of the Vancouver-Richmond health board in the delivery of alcohol and drug programs is imminent and that it's something that should materialize within the next few months. I gather from the minister's comments that it's not quite that certain, and there may be a lot more work to do. I paraphrase the minister's comments just to give her a chance to respond, so that we get a sense of where those programs may be going in the months to come.

Hon. L. Boone: They're ongoing discussions. That doesn't mean that things might not pull together really fast -- and those things happen. But right now there are ongoing discussions.

D. Jarvis: Earlier we were discussing the situation with regard to the number of children in the program, and the minister was going to get back to me with the figures because she didn't have them available at the moment. I was wondering if she could tell me: when the youths and adults are put into a program, do they start tracking them from that point on? Do they have records as to the eventual outcome and where they go after that?

Hon. L. Boone: Each of our agencies that provide alcohol and drug programs are accredited, so they must measure the outcomes to determine what the outcome was with regard to their programs offered. We are currently doing some research within our ministry and in conjunction with Health, to do some tracking and to measure some of the outcomes with regard to youth -- to track them through. We do try to track them as much as possible. With regard to the adults, it's a little harder to track the adults. Once they leave a residential treatment centre, I don't think we necessarily track them down all over the place. It's a little easier to do some tracking on the youth.

[1935]

Hon. L. Boone: These are combined numbers for adults and youth in the alcohol and drug programs. In residential treatment, the number served was 3,300. Intensive non-residential day treatment was 3,300. In out-patient services, clients were served in 130 centres; actually, 22,400 were served. Supportive recovery services served 1,600. For gambling problems, the number of clients counselled was 1,500. There were 23 out-patient programs for aboriginal alcohol and drug services contracted to the native friendship centres, two residential programs, eight aboriginal-specific contracted agency positions, and. . . . That's it.

D. Jarvis: So there is no specific tracking system set up so that you can tell where John Jones, who went in for a treatment last year, is today -- whether he be an adult or a child -- because of the fact that most of them are fairly mobile, or are travelling around from region to region.

Hon. L. Boone: We are just setting up an addictions-tracking system. The system that we inherited was not functioning properly, and those are some of the very real problems that we had as a ministry -- actually dealing with our systems. We've had to invest considerable dollars into making our systems compatible, in many cases, but also upgrading because they were not working very well.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could possibly tell me, is there any kind of. . . . She was mentioning the

[ Page 13427 ]

[1940]

As I said, our systems have been a major stumbling block for us in terms of getting some of the data and the information that we needed. We are overcoming that and we are getting our systems in place, but it costs a lot of money to do those things.

D. Jarvis: I don't dare get into priorities right at the moment, because that always leads to the minister standing up and trying to explain to us that her philosophy is better than anyone else's philosophy -- which we all know, and that's why we're so far in debt. I won't go down that line at the moment.

I was wondering if the minister could tell me: with regard to the Ministry of Health. . . . I understand that the Ministry of Health shares with the Ministry for Children and Families delivery in alcohol and drugs. Is that not right?

Hon. L. Boone: This is similar to what I mentioned earlier. We do not share with the Ministry of Health, but we do have some health authorities that deliver some programs. For example, the Thompson regional health board delivers some out-patient services in Logan Lake; Central Vancouver Island in Nanaimo and Cowichan, delivers out-patient detox and school-based prevention; Sunshine Coast, in Sechelt, just home detox; South Cariboo, 100 Mile House, out-patient services. Those are some of the services that are delivered by regional health boards on a contract basis. The contracts have gone out to tender, they have bid on the tender, and they have received the tender to deliver those programs for us.

D. Jarvis: Are there any nurses from the Ministry of Health that are being used by the Children and Families ministry that Children and Families may be paying directly themselves, rather than on a contract?

[1945]

C. Hansen: The area that my colleague just brought up is an area of interest in terms of the funding of public health nurses.

My understanding is that public health nurses are in fact employees of the health authorities, but that. . . . The number that was relayed to me recently was that 80 percent of the funding for public health nurses in fact comes from the Ministry for Children and Families. I'm wondering if the minister could verify that and explain to us the contractual arrangement -- if that's the term -- between the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health and/or the health authorities when it comes to the delivery of those services.

Hon. L. Boone: It is one contract that is administered through the Ministry of Health. We provide 80 percent of the funding for that. It goes out to the health authorities via the Ministry of Health. We set the policy and the programming for that. The 20 percent that is funded is funded by the Ministry of Health, and that's for immunization.

C. Hansen: Is the 80-20 split coincidental, or is it in fact a formula that's used to allocate the proportion of costs?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a formula that was determined by the Ministry of Health at the formation of the Ministry for Children and Families.

C. Hansen: If I've got this right, regardless of what the costs are for the public health nurses, 80 percent is allocated to the Ministry for Children and Families. Is my interpretation right there?

Hon. L. Boone: We determine the budget. The budget for that is $70 million. So it's not that we pick up the cost on whatever is spent. There is a budget that they must live within. Public health nurses have always had a budget, whether it's been determined by the Ministry of Health or by this ministry. Their budget is allocated, and it was protected in this round of budgets.

C. Hansen: The 80-20 breakdown between Children and Families and Health. . . . That is always a constant ratio, I gather. If, say, the funding available from Children and Families were to go up 10 percent, the funding for immunization would also go up 10 percent. Is that the way the formula works?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it doesn't automatically go. . . . If we were to increase our funding for certain programs, it wouldn't necessarily follow true that the Ministry of Health would increase their funding as well. So the percentages may vary, but currently it's 80-20.

[1950]

Hon. L. Boone: Well, first of all, I'll just go through the public health ones. You've got public health nursing, and you've got speech, audiology, nutrition, dental, and Building Blocks programs. Those are delivered through the public health envelope that is there. Child care subsidy is actually delivered by the Ministry of Human Resources. We provide the dollars to them; they administer it. Community schools -- the school meals program. . . . So there are a number of different programs that we in fact have our fingers into.

[ Page 13428 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. School meal coordinators, some of the community schools staff, family counsellors -- so yes, there are.

C. Hansen: I gather that those are protected programs, that they're under contract to the ministry. For example, one of the big public discussions that's going on in the Vancouver school board right now is about the psychologists who are working in the schools. But I gather the fact that they are threatened by potential layoffs would mean that they are not under a contract funded by the ministry. Those positions that are being funded by the ministry are in fact protected under some form of a contract with the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's correct.

D. Jarvis: The last point I wanted to raise -- and then I'll turn it back to my colleague -- was: are there any programs that are the reverse of that, that in fact are funded by other ministries but are administered and delivered by the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think so. Nobody wants to give us any extra money. No.

D. Jarvis: Could you give me the total amounts of what it costs to deliver alcohol and drug addiction. . . ? I notice that the total was $49 million-some, up about $5 million from last year, which is very good or very bad -- whichever way you want to look at it. Is there a breakdown between. . . ? Have you broken it down between the delivery on alcohol problems versus drug problems in that $49 million?

Hon. L. Boone: The total for youth and adult services is $49.65 million.

D. Jarvis: I realize it was $49 million; that's what I said. It was an increase of $5 million, and that's good or bad. But does the minister have a record as to how much was related to alcohol and how much to drugs?

[1955]

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister: in the business plan you had a section under "Objectives, Priorities and Outcomes." I wonder -- I guess it's under No. 6, on addictions -- if you could describe to me, under the outcomes, when you say, for example, decreased substance misuse. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you're right. We do have an outcome here that says that our objective is to have decreased substance misuse and problem gambling activity. Was there a question there? I'm sorry.

D. Jarvis: I want to know if there was. . . . I was looking at this, and I thought: well, the outcome. . . . How are you measuring it? And what has been the outcome, for example, of decreased substance misuse? Have you had any outcomes? This is your business plan. Does this mean that you have no results, that you couldn't describe what has happened until the end of 1999-2000?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the member is asking me for -- whether you want me to predetermine what the outcome is going to be for this year. We're saying that our target is to reduce the abuse and misuse of drugs. But we can't judge that outcome until such time as we've had the year to go through, and we haven't had that year to go through. So I'm not quite sure what it is you're asking, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: There's got to be at least 3,000 to 10,000 people go through the system, and your objective is to. . . . Does that mean one, or does that mean ten? When you laid out the business plan, did you not designate what the objective will be? Or are you just saying: "If we get one, then we've met our objective"?

Hon. L. Boone: If you look at the back of the book, appendix 4, it's got "Measuring Our Success: Indicators" -- which is what we were talking about earlier. It's got interim benchmarks. You've got your outcome objective, and then you've got your benchmarks which show what could happen. We would, of course, like to see us do even better than some of these benchmarks, but those are the benchmarks that are there.

D. Jarvis: What page are you on?

Hon. L. Boone: Pages 32-33.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair.

D. Jarvis: I hate this system; it's silly. You have to stand up every five minutes.

Another question to the minister: through her ministry, have they got any figures with regard to whether there's a rise in the number of suicides in the alcohol and drug. . . ?

[2000]

L. Reid: I want to spend a few minutes this evening canvassing the fetal alcohol syndrome issues. The Cowichan Valley FAS Action Team has certainly brought these issues forward. They have, in fact, a document entitled "FAS and Partial FAS: Collective Action for Collective Solutions." For the record, the Cowichan Valley FAS Action Team is a community coalition of family members, service providers, advocates and other volunteers, and their goal is to promote action that will prevent fetal alcohol syndrome and maximize the potential for persons living with FAS.

The minister will be aware that this issue has come before the Legislature many times, particularly in the form of private members' statements, as fetal alcohol syndrome being a per-

[ Page 13429 ]

The group continues to do some very good work. I know, by their correspondence, that they've met with you as Minister for Children and Families. They've met with John Millar, the provincial health officer, and they're continuing to advocate very, very strongly on this issue.

This issue speaks to me, not just as a legislator but as an educator. These are very difficult children to educate in the public school system in British Columbia, and enormous costs are attached to educating these children. These are not just problems that occur when someone is a member of the public school system community; these are lifelong impulse-control problems -- attention deficit disorders, inability to stay on task. That doesn't hamper just your ability to succeed in school; it truly hampers your ability to succeed in life -- in employment, in sustaining relationships. All those things are enormously difficult for these children.

The fact that we have some individuals in terms of the Cowichan Valley FAS Action Team willing to advance these issues, the fact that we have a number of venues and a number of options that have been brought forward by groups such as the Western Brewers Association, the mothers' risk line. . . . All of those groups are attempting to get a handle on how best to advance this issue. One of the programs that I've been very impressed with is the state of Washington and their regime of diagnostic clinics.

In that the alcohol and drug programs are now part of the Ministry for Children and Families, does this ministry have a commitment and a plan to ensure that diagnostic facilities will exist much more readily than they do today? The wait-list for the Sunny Hill program is very, very long. Is there a commitment on behalf of this ministry to move to a broader investigative framework so that more of these diagnostic clinics can be put in place? Perhaps it's, again, not a physical plant discussion. Perhaps it's a network of excellence, in terms of people who are very, very skilled at diagnosing FAS -- that they actually branch out to more effectively cover the province.

[2005]

Hon. L. Boone: If the member is asking whether we will be increasing our funding to fund new services, no, we don't have that in our budget this year. But we have taken a number of steps this year to try to deal with the problem up front, to try to do a lot of preventive work. We do have the new FAS action plan, the booklet that has gone out to groups across the province. We're dealing with FAS prevention through some of our building block programs to try to make women, men and families aware of the effects of alcohol on a fetus. You are very correct. This is an entirely preventable situation, so we're doing what we can to try and deal with that -- to put the dollars up front. That has been our focus this year. We do not have the dollars in terms of increasing the diagnostic facilities.

L. Reid: Again, it comes back to a discussion of priority. FAS accounts for 10 percent of mentally handicapped children in the province of British Columbia -- 10 percent. Because the minister agrees that this is a perfectly preventable tragedy, this minister is saying to the taxpayer that the costs of 10 percent of a population being mentally handicapped for their entire life. . . . This is a lifelong situation for them. Somehow we're not going to put in those resources early on in their lives, in terms of early intervention. Then we will only have at our disposal the opportunity to pay two or three or four times as much to deal with those children, not just over their lifetimes but in every aspect of their lives.

Now, it seems to me that this is a fairly clear black-and-white kind of discussion. Are we going to put in some resources to prevent a tragedy, or are we going to say to the taxpayer: "No. We're going to commit the taxpaying public to an issue that we can prevent if we'd invested a few more dollars and perhaps did a little more strategic thinking about how best to implement those programs"?

Having a lifestyle as a mentally handicapped person is hugely problematic. It's not just the cost to the taxpayer, but the frustration in their own lives, where opportunities that would be available if they did not suffer from a mental handicap are simply not open to them. Again, that's a pretty clear discussion item.

There has been some very good work done on this. I think the minister may want to come back to this discussion and maybe continue to meet with all of these individuals, who have done some very good work, whether they be at Sunny Hill Hospital, whether they be the group that's looking at supporting birth moms or whether they're the group that talks about malnutrition, poor health and access to prescription drugs as determinants and those aspects working in combination to make some women far more susceptible to having alcohol-addicted babies. The research is very, very clear in terms of brain development. Brains form from conception to 18 months of age and beyond. Those first 18 months of life are hugely important to the type of educated citizen we will have as a member of society. So there are lots and lots of avenues we could pursue and many we will canvass this evening.

In terms of the mother-child relationship, I would be very interested in the minister's remarks of earlier today, when I believe she indicated that there were 11 million new dollars going into the contracted sector to support children under supervision orders and to support children at home. Will any of those dollars find their way into the arena of fetal alcohol syndrome?

[2010]

[ Page 13430 ]

So we are not at odds in terms of the need for us to invest in and support women in preventing fetal alcohol syndrome, to prevent this terrible waste of life. We have put resources in there. We will continue to support those programs. We will continue to support the very good work of organizations such as the Cowichan organization. There is an organization in Prince George, as well, that does similar good work. We have tremendous people in volunteer groups around the province that are working with us to coordinate our efforts so that we can work with the family as a whole to try and prevent this. So we're not at odds, hon. member, in terms of the need to address this up front and prevent this from happening.

L. Reid: The question to the minister was specifically around the 11 million new dollars that are going into the system. Will any of those dollars through the contracted sector find their way into the hands of individuals who will be working with fetal alcohol syndrome?

I'm asking the question very specifically in terms of the case management. It seems to me that so many of those young moms and their babies are separated at birth. If indeed it is the intention of this ministry to get a handle on the case management of that unit as a unit, that is the difference in terms of how this province handles FAS and how the state of Washington handles FAS. They see it as a package; the client is both the mother and the child. The client is not just one or the other. In British Columbia many, many of those babies are apprehended at birth. Many individuals who have done superb research in this field will tell you that the outcome for having apprehended a drug-addicted baby at birth is that the mom has another drug-addicted baby. Washington State has moved beyond the basic apprehension model and said: " Let's treat it as a unit."

So my question to the minister, in terms of the $11 million she mentioned earlier in debate -- new dollars to protect children under supervision orders through the contracted sector: will any of that money be used to support drug-addicted young women and their babies in their own homes?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is some potential for that use.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that.

It seems to me that the people who are far more skilful in this area than I -- Dr. Christine Loock, Carol Legge; individuals who have spent a great deal of their lives working in this area -- have questioned many, many times why it is that those babies are separated at birth, before any attempt is made to remediate the relationship between that parent and that child, because they know full well that the outcome is that the parent has another child. Many, many of these women have had two, three or four pregnancies with drug- and alcohol-affected babies. We haven't solved the problem; we as a province simply move the problem.

[2015]

These children have been damaged -- no question about that. It horrifies me that they will live a life that has been compromised, but to apprehend and place them in a situation that allows their parent to have another child whose life will be compromised is not in the best interests of any future children to be born and not in the best interests of the province. And again, I would thank the minister for her commitment to the possibility that some of those dollars can be expended for that use. I think the minister will find support for that model in the community. I would lend my support to that exploration, because I think it's vitally important to move away from where we are, which, frankly, is not solving the problem. It's time to move a little bit ahead on that question.

In terms of the minister's earlier remark that perhaps dollars are not available for some of these issues, I want to just quickly reference the British Columbia liquor distribution branch market schedule, because there is a vast number of tax dollars from this very problem that enter the system and, frankly, go into general revenue. So if the minister wants some information that is more than readily available to her. . . . There are markups in this province of 160 percent on a bottle of alcohol. On Canadian spirits it's a 159 percent markup per litre. So in terms of whether there are avenues through which this ministry could access dollars that would have a dramatic and immediate impact on how this service is delivered in fetal alcohol syndrome children in the province, yes. This is not even a new tax, minister. This is directing -- targeting -- some existing dollars in the system that makes good sense to do that. Certainly the government as a whole has done that, and all kinds of other ministries have indeed looked at other avenues to secure dollars. This one is there. It's certainly information that is readily available to the minister, and I would certainly invite her to perhaps think about that. This is the government that has gone to great lengths to talk about the costs of tobacco and to have tobacco companies participate. What about having the dollars that this government already takes from the sale of liquors and spirits in the province of British Columbia and directing some of those dollars to this very issue?

I've met with the brewers; I've met with the vintners. I've met with individuals who have done some very, very fine work. The Labatt Breweries poster is first-class when it talks about conveying a message that will not necessarily impact on the high-risk drinker, which is not their target audience, but impact on the social drinker who may not be immediately aware of those impacts in the very, very early stages of pregnancy. So I see the solution, the remedy, to this dilemma as being one of partnership. Many, many individuals touch this area, whether it be brewers, vintners, the liquor distribution

[ Page 13431 ]

Again, I reference the fact that I've been in this Legislature almost nine years. We are always at the stage where we're discussing this. I want us to be at the stage where we're implementing programs that make sense in terms of reducing the number of babies any single woman will have who happens to be drug and alcohol addicted. That has to be the goal, the target. That has to be, for me, how you measure the success of this particular initiative. I know that's a position held by Carol Legge, the provincial coordinator. I know it's the position held by Christine Loock, who does a great deal of the diagnoses in this province. So I offer that to the minister, and I trust that she'll have a response for me.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, you're asking me to comment on something that I have no jurisdiction over. I cannot determine what happens to the tax dollars. Tax dollars go into general revenue, and general revenue is distributed to all ministries through the budgeting process. So if there was more money coming to us, there would be less money going someplace else. But those are issues that the Minister of Finance would be dealing with, and certainly not this minister.

[2020]

B. McKinnon: I met in Surrey with a large number of parents who have FAS children, and most of their children were adopted. One of their big concerns was that they weren't told that these children had FAS. They found out the hard way, by trying to figure out what was wrong with their kids as they were growing up. When babies are put up for adoption, why are they not tested to find whether or not they have FAS?

Hon. L. Boone: Apparently this is not as easy to diagnose as what one would think. In those with fullblown FAS, with the physical features and all that, even then it often does not show until later on. Those that have fetal alcohol effect, FAE, may not show until much later on, and that's a behavioral issue. So it is extremely difficult to identify, and often mothers don't reveal that they had an alcohol problem before they give up this child for adoption. Certainly, if we're aware of it, then that information should be passed on to the adoptive parents. But it's not that easy to diagnose.

B. McKinnon: It's my understanding that some of the children are known to have FAS, but the social workers do not share it with the people who adopted. Is there any way that the ministry can make sure that this is shared?

Hon. L. Boone: They are required to reveal that if they know that information. They are required to give that information to the adoptive parents. The problem, as I said earlier, is that sometimes that information is not available. They are in fact supposed to advise adoptive parents even if there is a risk. They're supposed to advise them.

L. Reid: There are a number of examples -- and I know that the minister has the correspondence as well, because it was copied to me -- where families, through FOI, have discovered that that information was known to the placement social worker and was not shared directly with the family. Is there some restriction, some policy within this minister's ministry, that prevents that information from being shared? When those individuals were called on that, they indicated that there were confidentiality issues. It seems to me that it would be in the child's best interests to do the utmost to ensure that the family had all the necessary information, if they indeed were offering that child a home for a lifetime. There are cases where it did not unfold that way, and the ministry certainly has that correspondence.

Hon. L. Boone: The new Adoption Act came in in 1996; that's when the changes came in. There may be some historical problems out there, but in 1996 the new Adoption Act came in, and it's very clear as to the obligations of the ministry to reveal those situations to adoptive parents.

[2025]

I happened to go up to Terrace on one of my business trips, and I talked to a number of groups up there. One of their big concerns is the number of FAS children in that area attending schools. There's nothing done for these children, and what happens to them from elementary school up is that they are expelled from school and out in the streets. A lot of these children are definitely aboriginal children. They suffer from FAS, and nobody looks after them. They wander the streets and get into trouble. The expense to the ministry is when they start getting into the court system and that sort of thing. I was just wondering: is there nothing the ministry can do can to help these kids up there?

Hon. L. Boone: There is funding through the school system for these children. If they're out of the school system, and they're onto the streets or what have you, we do have a number of support systems for these kids. I'm not quite sure what specifically you're asking for.

B. McKinnon: I think what I'm saying is that these children -- say, in elementary school, grade 3 or 4 -- suffer from FAS, and the teachers can't do anything with them in the classes, so they expel them from school. The parents apparently don't look after them that well, and they're wandering the streets; or the parents are working, and they have no place to put these children. If the minister would check into what is happening up there, she would find that a large number of children wandering the streets are suffering from this problem. If we take a look at our criminal justice system, we'll find that many of the children in that system are suffering from FAS, because they have nowhere else to go. Yeah, we all know that looking after FAS children is labour-intensive, and we won't argue that point. But we have to start doing something for these children, because it's going to cost us dearly as they get older and really start getting into our criminal system.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, there are a number of resources that we do have. There's early academic intervention. We've

[ Page 13432 ]

[2030]

"Whereas alcohol is a known teratogen to the fetus and can result in growth deficiencies, facial anomalies, brain injury and numerous secondary conditions;

"Whereas the incidence of FAS is 1:500 (or 96 children born each year in B.C.) with the rate of partial FAS being five to ten times higher;

"Whereas FAS is the leading cause of preventable birth defects;

"Whereas the lifetime health and education costs required to support a child with FAS exceed $1.4 million, exclusive of costs to the corrections system, and those incurred as a result of disability, alternate care, unemployment, lost productivity and loss of human potential;

"And whereas Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are implementing a joint tri-province public awareness and education campaign;

"Therefore be it resolved that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities petition the provincial government to reduce FAS and partial FAS through a provincewide education and awareness campaign, to include:

"(a) Warning labels on all beverage alcohol containers that clearly inform purchasers and consumers of alcohol that:

there is no recommended safe levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and

drinking during pregnancy can cause alcohol-related birth defects including FAS and partial FAS;

"(b) A multimedia advertising campaign capable of reaching communities of all sizes and locations that includes:

TV, radio and newspaper advertising comparable to the anti-smoking and AIDS awareness campaigns;

warning signs in places where beverage alcohol is purchased (bars, restaurants and liquor stores);

"(c) The inclusion of a module on FAS in alcohol and drug prevention programs and family life curricula in all elementary and secondary schools, and all professional education programs."

The one aspect of this that troubles me as a British Columbian is to know that the tripartite commission is working in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and that British Columbia chose not to participate. Could the minister please tell us why?

Hon. L. Boone: We did not turn it down; we were never invited to participate in that. This is because they have a different form in those provinces, a different formation of tribal concerns, etc. We've been working with our aboriginal communities in terms of delivering services, but we were never asked to participate in that tripartite. . . .

L. Reid: That is not their understanding at all. They saw British Columbia as being a leader in this area and that they could have, frankly, offered some wonderful insight to the work of this group and that British Columbia chose not to participate. Certainly ministers have attended meetings representing this province. Again, the contention of the folks I have spoken to, who represent Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, is that British Columbia chose not to participate.

So I would simply ask the minister if she could perhaps verify where she believes the ministry was not invited to participate. That is 180 degrees from where the tripartite provincial focus sees British Columbia's participation.

Hon. L. Boone: Regardless of what you're hearing elsewhere, we were not asked to participate.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that, and I know she will be hearing from them on this issue, because they will be amazed to learn that that has been her response.

I mentioned, earlier in my remarks, some other risks and the program that is put forward by the Western Brewers Association. I speak directly of Karen Netherton, who has put together some very useful pieces of information for all members of this Legislature so that the province can, hopefully, arrive at a provincial strategy in terms of how best to respond.

The minister has my comments on where I believe this province should be headed, because it certainly astounds me that we would continue to have some aloofness on the question when it comes to alcohol-exposed babies having permanent, long-term damage. We know that is the case, so continuing to say, "It's not my ministry; it's not my responsibility" only guarantees that more children will be born who will be forever compromised. I trust that the ministry will spend some time in Washington State in the coming months and come to grips with how best to craft a response plan for British Columbia.

[2035]

B. McKinnon: I just have two questions relating to drugs and alcohol. I'm curious why it is our kids can be taken from their parents, but young teenagers who get caught up with drug dealers can't be taken from drug dealers. I wonder if the minister could tell me why parents can't take their children away from drug dealers, when it's so easy to have their own kids taken away from them.

Hon. L. Boone: We had this debate last year. We can apprehend kids, but as you know, we can't hold them. We can take kids, and that's the whole debate around the secure care issue. We had that debate earlier with one of your other members from. . . . I can't even remember who it was, but the debate is: how do you hold them once they. . . ? We can apprehend them; we can take them in; we can put them into foster care; we can put them into a safe house. But if they choose to go back onto the streets or go back to their pimp, then at the current time we don't have the ability to hold them.

B. McKinnon: So a 14-year-old who is underage, not considered an adult, can't be held either by the government or by their parents. We don't have any rights to do that. I find that a bit difficult to understand, but I will read the Hansard from last year to find out what answers were given.

[ Page 13433 ]

Hon. L. Boone: They haven't been taken out of our schools. You may have schools that had counsellors, and maybe the school districts are removing them, but we haven't removed counsellors from schools.

B. McKinnon: I thank the minister for that answer. It was my understanding that drug counsellors were taken out of the schools. I will check into that again.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could give me an answer to this. I continually read in the papers and see in news articles that there's a problem with regard to recovery houses. I wonder if the ministry has set up any kind of procedure with the municipalities by which they can establish recovery houses and all the rest of it, because regardless of where they go, there seems to be a fight. A group of neighbours stands up and tries to remove them or stop them from proceeding. Have you set up a system or any type of procedure whatsoever?

Hon. L. Boone: The system that you're talking about is not one that is funded by the ministry. You're talking about, in particular, the one in Richmond right now. Those are not funded by the ministry. They are licensed by the Ministry of Health to make sure that they have whatever it is that Health has to license them for. So what would it be?

A Voice: Community care licensing.

Hon. L. Boone: Community care licensing, which is to make sure that they're not dives, that people aren't going into terrible, rat-infested places, etc. . . . So community care does that licensing to ensure that they have those standards in place, but they are not licensed by us to provide services. We do not contract with them to provide services. They are individuals who have chosen to open a recovery house, either on a non-profit or on a profit basis, to provide accommodation for individuals. But we have no control over them. They are not licensed, they don't receive dollars from us, and we don't have any input into them at all.

[2040]

Hon. L. Boone: Those rates haven't been raised since 1993. Costs for us to provide those services have gone up considerably over that time. The majority of those are actually covered by EAP programs. The feds pay for some of the aboriginal services, and Human Resources may pay for others. So we are, as I said, trying to cover the costs there.

Looking at the clock, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada