2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 20
[ Page 16971 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
C. Clark: A surprise guest today, an old acquaintance of mine and of the member for Prince George-Omineca, Tony Fogarassy, is joining us today. He's the new legal counsel for the Technical University of British Columbia. I hope the House will make him welcome.
If you'll indulge me, hon. Speaker, I have one more introduction to make. Also joining us today in the gallery is one of B.C.'s great foster parents -- a great voice on behalf of foster parents -- Delphine Charmley. I hope the House will make her welcome as well.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: In the gallery are three very interesting young people with whom I had lunch today. They are representatives from the Youth in Care Network. They are Ryan Noseworthy, Michelle Kim and Patricia Kotovich, and I would wish the House to join me in making them very welcome to this great occasion, this great place.
R. Coleman: Visiting his afternoon from Walnut Grove Secondary School in my riding are a teacher, George Kozlovic, a student, Pat Burke, and Chris Greerizan, another student. They are here today out on the front steps to lobby the government regarding the Anderson's Brigade Trail park. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce some visitors in the gallery today -- first my executive assistant Dwayne Hartle and his partner Shirley Dorais. Joining them today are Ernest and Aurelia Hartle, Dwayne's parents. They're celebrating their fiftieth anniversary here in B.C. They've come from Leroy, Saskatchewan; they're retracing their honeymoon trip they took 50 years ago by rail by taking the Rocky Mountain Railtour from Calgary to Vancouver. Would the House please congratulate them and welcome them to the House today.
R. Masi: It's my very great pleasure today to introduce my son Stewart Masi. He's been involved in politics since he was a little boy. He's a big boy now, and he's here visiting today. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. P. Priddy: Today we have in the gallery and are honouring secondary students from British Columbia who have won gold, silver and bronze medals at the sixth annual Canadian Skills Competition held in Quebec City. It is an event that actually brings together industry, schools and post-secondary institutions, resulting in a close match between school programs, industry standards and requirements. Since it began, the B.C. students have competed successfully on the national level, and some of them have gone on to the World Skills Competition.
[1410]
This year British Columbia was third in the number of medals that it took home to its home province. We have nine of those 11 secondary students in our gallery today. I'm going to name the students and ask the students to stand as I read out their names and then, at the end, ask the assembly to recognize them when they're all standing.
The winner of the medal in the field of cabinetmaking is Rob Sabo from Port Moody Secondary School, who's here today with his sister. The medal winner for automotive service is Ryan Lomax from Penticton Secondary School. The winner in the field of electronics is Brendan Moran from Port Moody Secondary in Port Moody. The winner in culinary arts for the second year in a row, actually, is Willi Pohl from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver. And a medal winner for job interview skills is Arun Chettiar from Eric Hamber Secondary School in Vancouver. Two medal winners in computer animation are Steve Mumford and Eric Larsson from Nanaimo District Secondary School. A medal winner for carpentry for the second year in a row is Chad Buhr from Caledonia Senior Secondary in Terrace. The medal winner for the principles of technology is Vu Lee from the Abbotsford Career Technical Centre , who is here today with his mother.
The achievements of these students are a testimony not only to their own hard work -- and that is very much what it's about -- but to the excellent standards and varied programs offered by their schools. I would now ask the assembly to recognize the British Columbia Olympians of technologies and trades -- welcome and congratulations.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Following on the heels of my colleague the Minister of Education, I'm proud to introduce to the House today two of the post-secondary students from this province who went to the same competition and won silver medals. There were five in total, but two of them join us in the gallery today. Faith Dahl, who was awarded a silver in forestry and is attending Kwantlen University College, proudly told me over lunch that she was the grandmother of the competition, having children of her own who were older than the secondary students who were attending as well in Quebec City. She's very proud of her accomplishment, and so she should be. As well, Ken MacKay, who got his silver in welding, attended the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook. So I ask all my colleagues in this chamber to join me in making them welcome today.
Hon. Speaker, I have a second set of introductions to make today. It's my pleasure to introduce to the House the Year 2000 Parliament Buildings Players. For the third year in a row they'll be portraying historical characters and bringing to life some of the history of British Columbia, in this program. This is a program which enhances guided tours of the parliament buildings and is a youth employment initiative aimed at providing experience to young student actors.
From July 1 to Labour Day, Meg Roe, currently studying at the University of Victoria, will portray Queen Victoria; Greg Landucci from Victoria will become Sir James Douglas; and Jamie Lawson from Richmond will be our second Premier Amor de Cosmos. From the northern community of Smithers, Devon Pipars will be Nellie Cashman, the miners' angel, and Desmond Davies, who recently settled in Victoria, will portray a Scottish stonemason. Jeffrey Kluge from Sidney will step into the character of Francis Rattenbury, the architect who designed these buildings. I am sure all of the members of this House join me in making them welcome.
J. Wilson: In the galleries today is Sue Maile. Sue is a constituent of mine and a very good friend, and I ask that the House extend a hearty welcome to her.
[1415]
B. Penner: A couple of weeks ago a Rotary Club in Chilliwack held a fundraising dinner and auction. One of the
[ Page 16972 ]
items up at the auction was a tour of the Legislature and lunch here at the dining room at my expense. Today the successful bidders are here taking advantage of their auction item, and I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber Corey and Nancy Dreveney from Chilliwack. Would the House please make them welcome.
K. Krueger: With us in the precincts today are my very good friends Pat and Byron Hill, who met and married here in Victoria, became wealth generators and big employers in Kamloops, and regrettably now are economic refugees to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. But they're here to visit us, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.
The Speaker: Members, on behalf of Sean Edwards, legislative intern, I'd like to welcome his parents, two longtime residents of Pitt Meadows, Mel and Lidia Edwards, to the House today. Mel's mother Thelma is accompanying them. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Balanced Budget Act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this bill is the third landmark piece of fiscal legislation introduced this session. We have introduced and adopted the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which makes our budgets and budgeting processes the most open and transparent in Canada. We have introduced
The Speaker: Minister, could you move first reading?
Hon. P. Ramsey:
An Hon. Member: You have to move first reading.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My apologies. I move first reading of Bill 28.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'll take the motion. The motion is first reading.
[1420]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Mann Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Cashore | Conroy |
| Smallwood | Miller | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | Ramsey | G. Wilson |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Stevenson |
| Gillespie | Streifel | Walsh |
| Kasper | G. Clark | Goodacre |
| Weisgerber | ||
| NAYS -- 34 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Dalton |
| McKinnon | Masi | Roddick |
| J. Wilson | Barisoff | van Dongen |
| Symons | Thorpe | Krueger |
| J. Reid | Coleman | Stephens |
| Hawkins | Hogg | Nebbeling |
| Weisbeck | ||
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll start over.
This is the third landmark piece of fiscal legislation introduced this session. We have introduced and adopted the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which makes our budget and our budgeting process the most open and transparent in Canada.
We have introduced a made-in-B.C. tax-on-income system, which delinks our system from Ottawa. British Columbians can now, in a clear and transparent way, see for the first time exactly how much they contribute to their provincial government. And we've reduced taxes for all British Columbians, particularly for those who need relief the most: low- and middle-income families.
Now, hon. Speaker, the third bill: the Balanced Budget Act. In drafting this bill, we drew on the experiences of other provinces and took the best features of similar legislation from across the country. But we have gone further. We have also introduced unique provisions that illustrate our government's commitment to accountability in managing the province's finances. This bill will make law the requirement to meet or exceed progressively lower deficit targets and balance the budget in 2004 and every year thereafter -- not over a cycle, but each and every year.
Hon. Speaker, this bill has teeth. If government's targets are not met, unless an emergency or unexpected circumstance imperils the health or safety of British Columbians or revenues decline by more than half a billion dollars, a 20 percent cut in ministerial pay for 12 months for all cabinet ministers will be implemented immediately. Pay cuts for ministers will take effect the first time a quarterly report or other public statement indicates that the legal deficit requirements may not be met in a fiscal year. This provision will make cabinet ministers in British Columbia the most accountable in Canada.
[1425]
Like every other provincial balanced-budget law, the Balanced Budget Act sets out conditions where the legal deficit requirements may be waived for a fiscal year. But unlike any other law, B.C.'s act requires the government to recall the Legislature and allow for debate on the emergency or revenue decline.
This bill is this government's commitment to ensuring that B.C.'s fiscal house is in order and stays in order. Balanced
[ Page 16973 ]
legislation is what the public wants; balanced-budget legislation is what this government, under the leadership of our Premier, wants. And all stages of debate will be considered a matter of confidence.
I move that Bill 28 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Bill 28 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.
BALANCED-BUDGET LEGISLATION
G. Farrell-Collins: Before the former Premier leaves the chamber, I thought he'd wait around to hear about a little bit of the history of balanced-budget legislation in British Columbia. In fact, British Columbia was one of the very first provinces in the country to introduce balanced-budget legislation. In fact, about six months before another election -- the election that took place in 1991 -- the Taxpayer Protection Act was introduced in this House. It did three main things. It froze taxes, it required the budget to be balanced over a five-year cycle, and every Minister of Finance was required to present a debt reduction plan.
Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note who voted in favour of that first balanced-budget act: the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for Nanaimo, the member for Prince George-Mount Robson and the member for Surrey-Whalley, to name a few. But right after the 1991 election those very same members
How stupid does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are -- that they would be fooled once again by the NDP?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The people of British Columbia are wise enough to know that that opposition, after introducing a private member's bill to balance the budget, opposed the piece of legislation without even reading it in this House. That's how ridiculous the opposition is.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: When the Premier had the temerity and the bravery to throw down the gauntlet and say it was a vote of confidence, you bet we're voting against it. And if he ever gets brave enough to throw down the gauntlet and call an election, the public will be voting against that government.
Let's go back in history a little bit. Maybe our actors in the gallery can help us a little bit. In 1992, Bill 3
[1430]
I should correct myself, because the current Premier missed that vote. It was another meeting he didn't attend. How does the Premier
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a new government under a new leadership under a new Premier.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a new government
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Order, members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Take your seat, please. Members, the question was listened to; I expect the answer to be given the same attention. I'd like to have the Premier answer the question.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I was saying, this is a new government under a new leadership under the new Premier. That's why the opposition sits there with faces glum, absolutely glum. And, hon. Speaker, they vote against the piece of legislation without even looking at it, because they are more interested in politics. They're not interested in the public interest in British Columbia, which we are.
M. de Jong: Yes, I'm distraught.
Here's another blast from the past. It's 1991, and a soon-to-be-decimated Social Credit government has brought in its version of balanced-budget law. This is what the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the former Premier, had to say: "This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a deathbed repentance which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia." Remarkable. If he gets royalties for the number of times I'll repeat that statement, he can pay his own legal bills.
NDPers didn't believe in balanced-budget legislation then; they don't believe it now. They flip; they flop. My question to the Premier is: after nine consecutive deficit budgets, does he really believe that British Columbians are going to believe his government's deathbed conversion?
I'm melting; I'm melting. I'm perplexed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the opposition should feel the heat, I can tell you that. They should feel the heat.
Hon. Speaker, there has been a change in government in British Columbia. There is a new direction of government in British Columbia. There is a new leadership of government in British Columbia. There is a new Premier in British Columbia.
The opposition shows that it is stuck in the past. The approach has changed on this side of the House. There is a
[ Page 16974 ]
new direction. On the opposite side, hon. Speaker, they are stuck in the past, and they continue to remain unchanged. That is why they continue to play politics and talk about what happened nine years ago, not what's happening today.
The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
[1435]
M. de Jong: That past that the Premier doesn't want to talk about includes him voting in favour of nine consecutive deficit budgets. If flip-flopping were an Olympic sport, we've just seen a gold medal performance, Mr. Speaker. This is like the double-quad flip-floperoo. We've never seen one of those in competition, have we, Geoff?
An Hon. Member: No.
M. de Jong: No. There was the Deputy Premier's triple klutz in the Ferries competition earlier this year, but that's nothing to what we've seen here today. Listen to what
An Hon. Member: There's the "I'm not responsible for the WCB
M. de Jong: Employment and Investment minister: "Balanced-budget legislation is a crock," Mr. Speaker -- a few years ago. Women's Equality minister -- let's go way back to April 11 of the year 2000, when she said: "They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service."
Maybe the Premier could tell us this: is there a secret facility out there somewhere, where NDP members get sent and trained to talk about balanced-budget legislation while they keep a straight face? Is that some special training they get?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, not that I am one to reciprocate in kind, but I would like to know where the hon. member
We had a debate in this House this morning, and I said to the hon. opposition leader: "Yes, we have changed." This is this legislation, and this new approach is born out of a sober second look at the issues in British Columbia.
And I say that because there is a difference. They talk about gutting -- gutting public service. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said he will decrease the public service by at least 5 percent and roll back salaries of the public service. He said that in the last campaign, hon. Speaker.
Let me also tell you, hon. Speaker, and let me tell the opposition that the bill that they introduced as a private member's bill in 1998 provides bonuses to public employees for cutting services in British Columbia. That's the distinction. We would balance the budget in British Columbia, but we would have our values of social responsibility, of compassion, of economic and social justice intact. We'll go to the campaign, and we will win the next election, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a further supplemental question.
M. de Jong: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier might be able to sell that bill of goods to a caucus that is terrified about the prospect of facing the electorate, but I'll tell you: there's no one out there in British Columbia that's going to believe a word of what he just said.
Let's see what else the NDP flip-floperoo includes, from the annals of parliamentary history. The Government House Leader had some pretty profound things to say in 1991, when he was confronted by very similar legislation. "All I want you to explain to me," he asked the government, "is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts past practices of your government."
Okay, Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't want to answer my question straight up. Here's one from his own Government House Leader. All I want you to explain to me, Mr. Premier, is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts your past practices -- nine consecutive deficit budgets that you still haven't apologized to British Columbians for.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, we admit that we have changed. I have been saying that to the people of British Columbia. I campaigned, hon. Speaker
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
[1440]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I campaigned on the platform of fiscal responsibility during the leadership campaign. This is part of that. We have thought about this issue. We have deliberated over it, and we have deliberately
G. Plant: Well, I want to read from a portion of the Premier's statement announcing his candidacy for the leadership of the New Democratic Party on November 7, 1999. The quote is this: "I won't insult British Columbians by standing here today to say I will guarantee you a balanced budget by a specific day in a specific month in a specific year."
So my question for the Premier is simple: will he stand here and insult British Columbians by saying that he will guarantee us a balanced budget by a specific day in a specific month or in a specific year? Why should anyone believe anything he says?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Plant: That was November, and this is June.
The Speaker: Will the member for Richmond-Steveston come to order, please.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said we thought about this issue long and hard. I said I campaigned on the platform
[ Page 16975 ]
of fiscal responsibility for the leadership of this great movement and this great party. And I said, since I wasn't the Premier and I wasn't the Minister of Finance, I did not have all of the information at my disposal. I said
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. The members will come to order. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will come to order.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said that I wouldn't insult British Columbians by putting a fixed date on balancing the budget. But I became the Premier. I looked at the issues. I thought about it long and hard. It wasn't an easy decision. It is a difficult, complex issue. And I decided that this is something that is so important to the life of politics in British Columbia that we're going to put a pledge in law to make sure that we balance the budget in British Columbia -- unlike the thoughtless reaction of the opposition in not even considering the legislation and voting against it without even reading it.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Hon. C. Evans: I ask leave to table a report.
The Speaker: Is there leave, members, to table a report?
Leave granted.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Ministry of Fisheries annual report for 1998-99.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year ending March 31, 2000.
Hon. D. Lovick: I too have the honour to table a report, this one from the B.C. Treaty Commission for the year 2000.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to table the final portion of the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia, entitled "The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction," part 2, chapter 2, and accompanying documents.
Hon. I. Waddell: I have the honour to table three reports. The first two are the annual reports for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Secondly, I have the very real honour to table a report by Bernie Pascall entitled "Eliminating Violence in Hockey," assisted by Sharon White. I'd like to thank Bernie and Sharon White for this report. I table it now.
[1445]
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and the Public Service. In this chamber I call second reading debate on Bill 25, the Secure Care Act.
SECURE CARE ACT
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: It's a pleasure for me to rise on this occasion to speak to open debate on second reading of Bill 25, the secure care legislation.
One of the central goals of the Ministry for Children and Families is to encourage the healthy development of all children and youth. In order to do this, we have a broad network of programs and services across this whole province. Overall they work pretty well, but one group of young people continues to fall through the cracks. They are among the most vulnerable children in this province. I'm talking about a small but significant number of children whose own behaviour is putting their health, their futures and their very lives at risk -- kids who reject the help available, the help they so desperately need.
We have no authority to force them to get support or treatment. That leaves all of us -- families, friends, service providers, government and society -- powerless to help them. It's not enough for us to sit back and sit by and watch their young lives be devastated by street life or other forms of self-abuse. Bill 25 will change that for the first time in British Columbia by providing a constructive way to intervene in the lives of youth, many of whom have problems with hard-core addictions or serious involvement in the sex trade.
In this legislation we have tried hard to balance the needs, the rights and responsibilities of young people, the roles of parents in ensuring the safety of their children and the role of government in providing necessary supports and services.
[1450]
This legislation is primarily aimed at youth aged 12 to 16. The purpose of the legislation is to provide, when other less intrusive measures are unavailable or inadequate, a means for assessing and assisting children who, first of all, have an emotional or behavioral condition that presents a high risk of serious harm or injury to themselves and, secondly, who are unable or unwilling to take steps to reduce that risk. We are indeed talking about extreme cases where the powerful grip of their addiction or their pimp keeps them on the streets and robs them of the likelihood of ever reaching their full potential.
To illustrate this point I've got several examples, circumstances where parents and service providers have not been successful in reaching their children. A boy aged 14 is having difficulty in school. He has a history of setting fires and frequently uses alcohol, marijuana and IV drugs. His friends are older males, 18 to 25, and it is suspected he is being groomed for child pornography. He may be HIV-positive but refuses to see a doctor.
Or a girl aged 13 is being sexually exploited. Her pimp is known to be violent, and she is frequently seen with marks and bruises. She refuses to make a statement to police about the source of the injuries. She is extremely underweight and is suspected of having hepatitis C, which is compounded by heroin use.
[ Page 16976 ]
These children are known to police and service agencies, yet no action can be initiated under any existing legislation. Historically, voluntary services involvement has failed. We face the danger of losing these kids forever.
Recognizing the need for another option, a better way of helping these children, the ministry started a consultative process back in 1998. I want to acknowledge the contribution that was made by the chair of that secure care working group, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. The working group included such members as Diane Sowden of the Children of the Street Society. It included service providers; it included police; it included people concerned with civil liberties and human rights. That group reported out in the fall of 1998 with a range of possible options. Subsequent to that more than 200 groups and individuals shared their comments on the various proposals.
One of the questions that was put to the secure care working group was to consider the option of secure care for those cases where nothing less will protect kids from themselves. An overwhelming majority said yes, British Columbia does need a secure care option, and that consensus is the basis for the bill that is before this House today.
So how does it work? How is it going to work? First of all, the child's parent or guardian or a new official called the director of secure care would make an application to a secure care board, requesting a period of secure care to assess and assist a child at serious risk of self-harm. This would be for as short a period of time as possible but would ensure safety, a complete assessment and the development of a plan for assistance. Board members would have special training and expertise in matters relating to high-risk children, assessment and intervention and human rights.
In each and every case the question put to the board has to respond to four basic criteria. First of all, they would need to ensure that the child or youth did in fact face a high risk of harm from their behaviour. Second, they would have to confirm that the young person was unwilling or unable to take steps to reduce that harm voluntarily. Third, they would have to be confident that no other less intrusive measure was available or adequate to reduce that risk. Finally, they would have to be satisfied that a period of secure care would indeed be in the best interests of the child.
[1455]
Where all four conditions were met, the board could grant a certificate ordering that the child be held for the period of time necessary to complete assessment and planning -- never more than 30 days. In exceptional cases, where the child still faced considerable risk of harm after the 30-day period, the board could grant a maximum of two 30-day extensions to that original term.
In emergency situations -- those involving the most extreme circumstances and where the risk of severe harm is imminent -- a child could be brought into secure care by the director of secure care for up to 72 hours without prior approval of the board. But the board would have to review the case as soon as physically possible, and no child would be kept for more than 72 hours without the board's consideration of all their possible options.
We are acutely aware of the impact this legislation has on the rights of children and youth to make their own decisions about their lives, so we've built in an extensive list of safeguards. For example, every child and youth who is the subject of a hearing will be notified of his or her rights, including the right to legal counsel and the right to express his or her views. Any matter decided by the board in the child's absence may be reconsidered with his or her input. All youth served under this legislation will have a comprehensive assessment and intervention plan developed, with copies of these documents being filed with the children's commissioner. Again, the child, youth and family advocate will be notified of each and every secure care hearing.
But in addition to these precautions, we would also enshrine a set of rights for youth within the legislation guaranteeing some pretty basic situations for them: to be fed, clothed and sheltered according to reasonable standards; to be free from corporal punishment; to be informed about their intervention and assistance plans and to be consulted about significant decisions affecting them; to privacy and discussions with family, with their guardian, a lawyer, the child, youth and family advocate, the children's commissioner and other public officials; to participate in social, recreational and religious activities; to receive guidance and encouragement; to maintain their cultural heritage, and to receive guidance and assistance to address the risk that led to their detainment.
This legislation has been several years in the making. We have consulted broadly with parents, youth, civil liberties groups, service providers, community organizations and experts here in B.C. and in provinces such as Alberta, which have had significant experience in this area. But their legislation is not the same as this.
I want to stress that the vast majority of youth can and do get the help they need through the network of voluntary services and supports. This bill is only intended to help those few who are at the most extreme risk of self-harm. It is a service of last resort.
We expect that it will cost approximately $10.6 million a year to implement this legislation, plus a capital cost for additional facilities. We expect to house no more than 20 youth in secure care throughout the province at any given time. I would also like to add that as part of this new legislation, we would further enhance the existing network of safe housing, addiction treatment and other services already available for high-risk youth in British Columbia.
This bill is just the latest step in our ongoing commitment to meet the needs of high-risk youth. For example, in the last two years we've invested more than $9 million in new youth addiction services, more than tripling the number of treatment beds available in communities right across this province. We've put more outreach workers out there on the streets. We've developed a range of safe housing options for youth who choose voluntarily to leave the sex trade. And we've amended the Child, Family and Community Service Act to allow for restraining orders against pimps and others who sexually exploit our children.
We've developed youth agreements to give us a way to work with kids constructively to help them get their lives back on track. We're boosting the number of front-line staff in communities across the province by nearly 200 full-time-equivalents. All of these measures are helping to make a positive difference for youth at risk. But as I mentioned earlier, under existing legislation, we still are not able to help some of those young people who are most at risk. That's why we're moving ahead with secure care legislation. Let me assure you, we are moving forward very carefully.
[1500]
[ Page 16977 ]
As I conclude, let's consider that youth is indeed a time of transition. Young people need to explore the world, find out where they fit and how they can contribute. And they make mistakes. We all do; we all did. It's a basic part of growing up. Most kids have tools and resources. They need to learn from their mistakes and to move successfully into the adult world. But that group of high-risk kids who are on the street, who are addicted, exploited and no longer capable of defending themselves -- these young people need extra support. And, Mr. Speaker, it's up to us to make sure that that support is available when and where they need it. We all know that life on the street, life on drugs or life in the sex trade can mean a young life wasted. And for those kids secure care can potentially open up a whole new world of opportunity. I look forward to providing that opportunity through this legislation in the months ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of this bill.
L. Reid: I too rise to engage in the debate on Secure Care Act, Bill 25. My first question: what is meant by the term "secure care"? Will the focus be on care or on containment? The answer to the question lies in the preparation and the implementation of the Secure Care Act.
Allow me to put my questions on the record. Was there a continuum of service available prior to the introduction of this bill? The answer is no. Will there be a continuum of service following third reading? No. The implementation of these programs could take years, and hon. Speaker, this government has had years -- nine years, to be exact -- and hasn't taken the initiative to move on this very critical piece: implementation of a range of programs and services.
Staffing issues are a huge consideration for this ministry. Vacancy rates across the province rest at 40 percent in the north and 20 percent in other areas. This becomes an issue for this act, when we discuss plans of care. Last year only 8 percent of plans of care were found to be adequate. This year 20 percent of plans of care are found to be adequate. That's one in five. The goal for the ministry is only for 50 percent of plans of care to be adequate next year -- 50 percent; half the children. The ministry has a sense that half the children having an adequate plan of care is appropriate.
The Secure Care Act will now require care plans after 72 hours. A lovely objective -- however, how likely is it? How likely is it that care plans can be completed in 72 hours, when we have countless examples of inadequate and nonexistent plans of care after months, and sometimes years, of being in care? Is this government embarking on another hollow promise? Is this government promising to parents a program that they will be unable to deliver? There are parents in this province who have heartfelt anguish over their young people who are in dire circumstances today in the downtown east side and downtown south and other regions of this province -- parents' anguish that should be felt very strongly by every single member of this Legislature. That is the anguish we are attempting to mitigate today, if you will, by the introduction of this bill.
I need to be clear, as does my caucus, that this bill actually responds to that need. I have spoken many times of the need for a continuum of care, a continuum of services that are available in a timely manner. The timeliness is critical. Access doesn't mean: "Join the queue -- you too can be on the wait-list." Parents already know the frustration of waiting for service.
[1505]
The Wait List Initiative, undertaken by Penny Kellett and Jim McDermott in this province today, is a direct result of parental frustration. We already have countless thousands of parents waiting for service that this government has not addressed. There are today tens of thousands of kids waiting for service -- many thousands in British Columbia. Six thousand, I believe, is the ministry calculation. Jim McDermott and Penny Kellett experienced the anguish parents feel when their child is awaiting service, sometimes for months and years at a time. Under this act the government is stating that high-risk kids will have the services they need.
But will they? Are we moving to a preventive detention model, or will there be services available? I ask that question most sincerely, hon. Speaker, because that will determine the success of Bill 25. If there are not services, it is simply a containment model. The focus must be on care.
Many parents are skeptical, and justifiably so. These parents have waited for years for service -- many, many since these children were very young. And these are the same kids, hon. Speaker. These are not problems that arose yesterday. For lots of these kids that the minister outlined in her remarks, there were signs along the way that they would need additional supports, additional resources. These same kids often had those early needs ignored by this government. So to somehow suggest that we wait until we're in crisis mode before we intervene
So again, my point, hon. Speaker: these parents have waited for service before. I'm hoping they will not continue to wait. The services have not been provided in the past. This is a call to this government to ensure that if they pass this bill, the promise is fulfilled. They are today, by the introduction of this bill, making a promise to parents that that resource will be in place. There is no greater promise than providing a service to a child in the province of British Columbia. This government cannot afford, at this juncture, to break that promise.
Parents in this province have experienced years of denial of service at the hands of this government -- frankly, thousands of examples over the past nine years. Can parents today have any confidence that this time it will be different? If the minister is looking for examples, she only needs to look to Surrey, to the infant wait-list, the folks today waiting for speech-language therapy, for occupational therapy, for physiotherapy, for counselling, for behavioral interventions -- the list is endless. There are opportunities for this government to do the right thing that have not been taken to date.
Can the minister deliver on the promise of care within the Secure Care Act, or is the focus only on containment? Will the kids of this province be subject to preventive detention? Those questions need to be answered.
We're prepared to lend our support to 72 hours if treatment and a plan of care are the result. Containing children against their will beyond 72 hours has the potential to be a Pandora's box. The information we received at the briefing just this morning suggests that this bill should only apply to 20 or 30 young people at any time. The closest Canadian
[ Page 16978 ]
jurisdiction to deal with secure care is Alberta, and in Alberta today there are 343 young people in secure care. That, again, is information provided to me within the last hour.
On another aspect of this bill, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner has been abundantly clear: this act, in good conscience, should not proceed with the questionable privacy provisions intact. He has said very clearly that this bill should not proceed with the questionable privacy provisions intact. The minister should be advised that her ministry should look to support amendments to this bill by deleting the offending sections. That is the best advice of the day.
I trust that this minister will listen to the advice. Her failure to respect the right of young people with respect to their own information will only damage this process further. These children are at risk from personal harm and circumstance. This bill should not be about further damaging the rights of children and youth in this province.
[1510]
This is a bill which would absolutely benefit from public input and clarification. Perhaps this bill could be the first bill to move to committee stage during a fall session of this Legislature. This would allow for improvements to the bill, and there is no one today who is saying that the bill could not be improved. In fact, I think the minister has put on the order paper the first amendment to the bill. At the briefing this morning ministry staff indicated that amendments to the privacy provisions of this bill would fall on fertile ground, but not at this time. There is simply not enough time to prepare the amendments for this committee debate.
I was hoping that since this government has been in office for nine years, and in possession of a secure care working group report for more than two years, sufficient time was available to prepare this bill properly. The minister's comments of just six weeks ago that the notion of secure care was way too controversial speaks to the fact that the actual drafting of the bill did not receive its due. Six weeks ago the ministry wasn't proceeding; today we have a bill. We have seen unclear legislation before this House in the past, which often results in mistakes being made and numerous amendments in legislation based on faulty information. I would submit that we will see amendments to the bill so that this legislation is actually workable.
This is a delicate balancing act -- the infringement of a child's rights to ensure their personal safety. I have numerous questions regarding the separate privacy provisions for this act and concerns as well about the possibility of detention without representation. The creation of a new bureaucracy
The minister mentioned earlier the safeguards for the kids. She indicated that they have the right to counsel. We all know that the right to counsel does not always result in legal representation. We already have enormous wait-lists through the Legal Aid Society. We already have enormous opportunities to fund the system that have simply not been met. There is demand there today that is not met. Is this minister suggesting that these individuals will move to the front of the line? That would be an interesting thing for us to learn.
This bill has flaws. The delicate balance required has not been struck. Instead of a new bureaucracy, why not have these applications come before a family court judge? These very skilful people make these judgments now. Are we prepared to give someone outside the judicial process the right to lock kids up? Is there a workable appeal process in place? Both these issues have not been adequately addressed. Judges have the ability to order resources for kids. There is accountability in the court process. An appointed board will not obtain a similar level of accountability.
Our concerns have been noted. We will do all we can to arrive at a legislative product which works. Our children deserve the very best society has to offer. I for one believe that we all have an enormous obligation to safeguard the next generation. However fledgling Bill 25 turns out to be, the official opposition will stand in support. Our focus is on the care of our kids, and we are trusting that this ministry will rise to the challenge. There is no greater undertaking before us today.
If this sentiment had been shared by the government opposite, I think we would have seen before us a flawless bill, one that had been well constructed, well thought-out, with enormous accountability in place. It's a fledgling bill. The kids of this province deserve better.
B. McKinnon: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 25, the Secure Care Act, 2000. I will be supporting this bill, but I have some reservations about the way this government drew up this very important piece of legislation. I don't believe the government when they say that this bill took years in the making. It wasn't that long ago that government said that it would not be drafting this bill, and suddenly -- approximately six weeks later -- we have Bill 25. No, I think it was six weeks ago that the government decided to go ahead with this bill of secure care. So now we have it before us. And that bothers me, because this is such an important bill. I have seen the way this government has handled previous legislation.
[1515]
You only have to look at legislation such as the Forest Renewal Act and ask yourself: do we need forest renewal? The answer, of course, is yes. Then ask yourself: do we need secure care? And I believe the answer to that is also yes. When we look at what this government has done to forest renewal, you can understand why I have a hard time believing that this government is capable of getting legislation right. We find bills coming back constantly for amendments because they didn't get it right the first time.
When we bring forth legislation that is as important as this bill, we need to make sure that everything is going to work in the best interests of our children. I don't believe that we should be pushing for legislation just because an election is looming.
There are two types of kids that this bill will focus on. The first is kids between ages 12 and 16, who are mainly young girls in prostitution. The second type is kids who are on drugs and going downhill very fast. These are not kids that have any type of criminal record. What this bill does is to give this government more power and responsibility than they have now over our children. I don't have any confidence in this government, and that is why I worry about giving them more control over children, even though they say they are trying to
[ Page 16979 ]
protect them in dangerous situations. Yes, we have a duty to protect our children. I don't believe children have a right to do drugs or prostitution.
I find three problems with this bill. The first is the privacy issue. This government has allowed this ministry to be less accountable to the public than any other government agency, because it severely diminishes the access and privacy rights of ministry clients. According to the privacy commissioner, this creates a two-tiered access and privacy system, causing ministry clients to have fewer rights than with other public bodies.
I realize the ministry is talking about making later amendments to this bill, hon. Speaker. We all know that if the ministry decides to amend this bill, the bill will just be put with the many other stacks of bills that need amending, and it may never see the light of day again. Like most government legislation, bills keep coming back to this Legislature to be corrected. Why is it that everything that this government does is done on the spur of the moment?
The second thing that concerns me about this bill is that it creates a new bureaucracy. Forming a secure care board with the powers described in this bill is a power that only our judges should have. What type of training will these people have? My understanding is that we will not be able to challenge any decision this board makes. There is no appeal process. These children are the most vulnerable of society, and I don't have a lot of faith in having a secure board without any safeguards. If we don't have safeguards, there is always the potential for abuse. We need a balance of rights and responsibilities. Every time we create a new bureaucracy, this bureaucracy has to make work for itself for its survival.
The third thing that disturbs me is the power that will be given to this government to put kids away for up to 90 days. This bill will give the government absolute power over our children. If the government is going to scoop our kids, then kids should be immediately given a lawyer. Without any accountability, it will be very easy to scoop kids off the street along with their friends. To date, we haven't seen this government do a great job of seizing children, caring for them and providing for their needs. This government hasn't given us any reason to believe they will be any different with secure care.
These are some of my concerns when I look at our province's drug and alcohol problems. I see that they are in epidemic proportions. I see a government with a poor success rate. When it comes to accountability, this ministry is the worst offender. One thing I do care about is the children and families who live in this beautiful province of ours. I will be supporting this bill because if it saves the life of one child, it will be worth it.
[1520]
B. Penner: I too would like to indicate at the outset my intention to support this bill at second reading. However, that's not to say that I don't have a number of concerns about the legislation as presented to the Legislature.
A number of those concerns have already been addressed by two of my colleagues who have already spoken. Foremost among them include the way the government has cobbled together this legislation six weeks after publicly stating that they did not believe in secure care for children. We have seen some remarkable 180 degree turns taken by this government in the last number of months, and this is among them. We had the Minister for Children and Families saying that secure care was too controversial and therefore would not be pursued, only to be here today debating the principle of the very same legislation and supported by the same minister who said she wouldn't support it six weeks ago. So I wonder about what kind of legislation has been generated, given that it apparently has been done in just six weeks.
Let me focus my remarks a bit more again -- less about the drafting process and more about the specifics in the bill. Like my colleague the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'm concerned about the lack of an appeal mechanism for young people who may find themselves detained for up to 90 days. Now, 90 days may not sound like a great amount of time to us, but for a young person who may be snatched away from the only home they've ever known, it can be a very traumatic experience.
Prior to being elected here in 1996, I worked for a period of time as a lawyer in Chilliwack. I recall acting for one young person who had been charged with a Criminal Code offence and denied bail. This was the first time that she had spent a night away from home. For two and a half months before her trial could be scheduled, she was forcibly detained, I believe it was at the Maples Centre in Burnaby.
During that time, her mother, who is of very limited financial means, was unable to visit her daughter. I believe my client was 13 or 14 years of age at the time. On a couple of occasions, her mother did arrange transportation to the Maples, only to be turned away and denied access to her daughter -- once, believe it or not, because the Maples was being used to film a movie. Filming the movie and the security concerns around that precluded my client's mother from visiting with her.
All of this was a horribly traumatic experience. But let me just skip ahead. Oh, I forgot to mention that while my client was there, not only was she denied the ability to visit with her mother but her roommate hung herself in her cell, right next to my client. This was the kind of condition that my client was forcibly required to live in for two and a half months.
Well, the trial came. On the day of the trial, the Crown's key witness admitted under cross-examination that in fact it wasn't my client who committed the act but somebody else. They just identified my client because they felt like it. For that reason, my client spent two and a half months locked up in a jail away from her mother, away from home for the very first time in her life and experienced her cellmate committing suicide right next to her. I suspect that my former client, even today, lives with those memories and has to deal with that.
I share that with the members present out of a sincere will to let you know that mistakes do happen, no matter how well-intentioned authority is. If there are not checks and balances built into that authority, mistakes will happen. The Secure Care Board that is created through this legislation will have dramatic, sweeping powers, and there is no mechanism for appeal of those decisions.
In the case of my client, she eventually had her day in court and was acquitted. I should note here, too, that my client had been offered by the Crown that if she'd only plead guilty, they would let her out with just probation. But she said she'd always been taught not to say one thing, if it wasn't true, and do another. So she insisted that she was innocent, and it was borne out. And for that, she paid the price of being separated from her mother for about two and a half months.
[ Page 16980 ]
I know that everyone here has the best of intentions in their heart when it comes to protecting our young people. Clearly we need to be able to move in and deal with young people when they're at their most vulnerable stage, but we have to be ever mindful that human beings are inherently mistake-prone. We are not perfect. We have to build a model or a system that will accommodate those young people who wish to challenge their detention, because that is what we're talking about.
[1525]
In the days to come I believe it will be appropriate to consider a number of amendments to this legislation, and I hope that everyone here will accept those amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, and that is, in a real gesture of goodwill and in a sense of duty to our young people.
I have had constituents come to my office who are frustrated at their lack of power to protect their young ones. Girls as young as 12 years of age, in one case, have been taken away from Chilliwack to the streets of Vancouver, and the parents are told that they don't have a legal right to go collar their children and bring them back.
This legislation, I know, is an attempt to address that kind of scenario. In Alberta the provincial government has already enacted legislation which gives authorities the permission to detain young people for up to 72 hours. This clearly goes much beyond that, and I wonder about the ability of this legislation to withstand a constitutional challenge. I know the legislation in Alberta has been challenged at the Court of Queen's Bench, I believe, which is equivalent to our Supreme Court of British Columbia. It was upheld as a justifiable infringement on a person's Charter rights to liberty of the person.
However, here we are talking about a dramatically increased period of time -- from three days to 90 days -- and I wonder if a court, when interpreting this legislation, will consider that that, too, is an acceptable limitation on our Charter rights. Don't forget, young people do have rights. The courts have already determined that, and we have to balance whatever we're attempting to do with the rights of those individual young people.
So with those cautionary comments, hon. Speaker, I would like to conclude by indicating that I too will be supporting this bill in principle but will be watching closely to see if the government will accept friendly amendments.
T. Stevenson: Of course, I'm pleased to speak in favour of Bill 25. I chaired the secure care working group, which included members such as Diane Sowden of the Children of the Street Society, also service providers, police and people concerned with civil liberties and human rights. It was a very dedicated working group; it had a great deal of expertise. We dealt with this issue over a very long period of time and many meetings, and I want to thank publicly the members of that working group for the extraordinary work that they did.
We, of course, consulted extensively with the public. In fact, more than 200 groups and individuals responded to a call for public feedback. We completed it, as you may recall, in August of '98, and then there was whole year of public consultations. The drafting, then, of the bill began immediately after that, in 1999. So it is absolute rubbish to hear from the opposition that somehow, six weeks ago, all of a sudden we began to draft it. The drafting was done a year before that -- a year before that. Don't you think that that's already done? Of course it has been.
[1530]
We heard from parents, many parents, from all over this province. We heard about their terrible dilemmas. I can say, chairing that group, that on many occasions, talking to parents -- not only here, but right across the country, because I went across the country to look at other secure care facilities in Quebec and Ontario, as well as in Alberta
We have very few avenues by which to help them. There's kind of a quiet desperation of their families, in fact, as they watch their children ruin their lives. They believe -- and they're correct in this belief -- that there was nothing that we could do. We couldn't apprehend them and try to do any kind of assessment. So now, finally, we have a bill coming forth that is of great relief to parents.
I listen to the opposition talking about this bill, and I must say that I get somewhat discouraged. I don't think that the members really have any personal knowledge of what's at stake here or have talked to the parents or talked to these groups. Everything I've heard was negative. There isn't one word that possibly this bill is of any use or of any help. Then all of a sudden, at the end we say: "Oh yes, but we're still going to support it." Everything in the meantime is to tear it down. It's just negativity, negativity, negativity.
It would be helpful if the opposition would discuss this legislation with us and point out what they think is good about the legislation and what's helpful about the legislation and what they see as positive -- and then, of course, help us out again by pointing out where they think there's more that we could do. Obviously both sides of this House are interested in doing whatever we can do deal with this very, very difficult situation.
We cannot continue to sacrifice our children. As you know, I represent Vancouver-Burrard; that's the downtown area of Vancouver. We have these young people on the streets in downtown Vancouver. They will be panhandling, and they're prostituting. They're into drugs; they're into selling drugs. These are young kids. I've seen them and talked to them as young as 12 years old, and there has been very little up to now that we could do about this.
So secure care is just another way that we can support the parents as they work to protect the kids. They have come to us, and they have begged us to help them support their kids. They're literally at wits' end trying to figure out how to get them off the street, trying to figure out how to get them away from pimps, trying to figure out how to get them away from those that would have them sell drugs on the street.
Sometimes, you know, we think that they come from some sort of broken homes, that those are the only kids and they're bad kids or something. That's not true. There's all sorts of different situations that often come together for a kid to end up on the streets. Often it's not because the parent is lacking in love or care or anything else, but things go wrong. Then all of a sudden, they find their little child -- 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls and boys -- prostituting on the streets and prostituting, as I say, in my riding. So we have listened to these parents. And again, I say that this working group was a group of
[ Page 16981 ]
experts. I was incredibly impressed by these people who worked so hard to come up with this report. I urge the opposition to read that report and to see how, in fact, this legislation is a direct result of that report.
[1535]
The members of this working group covered all of the issues and all of the questions that I hear the members of the opposition raising -- and then many more questions as well. We are following their advice. It's not our agenda that we're trying to jam down the throats of kids or society -- or take away anything. We are listening to the parents; we are listening to these experts who are asking us: "Please, please, government, help us out on this."
We also heard from the youth themselves, who said again and again to us: "Don't give up on us. Don't give up on us. Don't let us destroy our lives. We've ended up here, and we've ended up here for a whole number of reasons, and we don't know how to get out of it. We don't know how to change it. We're hooked on drugs, or we have a pimp that's always after us."
I think I mentioned this some time ago, that I spent 24 hours -- or rather, overnight -- down on Granville Street, along with some members of the opposition. That was really an eye-opener, because at three o'clock in the morning, I'm talking to these young kids who you just want to take home and, say, tuck into bed. But these kids are wiped out -- are totally wiped out. And there's nothing we could do. We can't touch them. We just have to say: "Well, gee, we'd like you to have some help, but if you don't want to have some help, well, I'm sorry." We have to tell the parents that they can't take them home, because there's no way that we can pick them up and send them home.
I understand that it's not easy to balance the rights of children and the rights of parents. There is, you know, a declaration of children's rights. It's the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. I actually have that declaration in my office. Ironically, I'd never seen it until I went to South Africa. It's a wonderful declaration of children's rights. The ANC in South Africa was very much behind this declaration; they put out posters. I happened to pick up one of those posters, so I have it in my office. I do fervently believe in the rights of children.
I mean, children are not owned by parents, although some parents obviously think that they do own their children. But they are a gift to parents to nurture and bring up for a short period of time and then let them go.
These children have rights, but parents also have rights. And so how do you balance this when a child says: "No, I don't want to be picked up. I want to stay on the street. I want to self-destruct"? And the parents are begging you and saying "But we have rights as parents. We want you to intervene."
So I'm not saying for a moment that these questions aren't difficult. Certainly I can tell you that the discussion that went on in the working group around this area was prolonged and difficult, with people at very opposite ends of the poles trying to come up with some solution or compromise that everyone could agree to, and finally we did. But it was after enormous struggle, and every possible avenue and question that you can think of was thoroughly discussed.
[1540]
Obviously, holding children against their will is not a comfortable prospect; it's not something that we like to do. This legislation means that we'll only be doing it with the very high-risk children. This is not a carte blanche to have someone go down and just pick up all the kids in the street that are panhandling and shove them into secure care. There are checks and balances in this legislation. It is crafted -- I think, brilliantly -- in order to find those checks and balances, taking into account that we don't want to apprehend children. But in some high-risk, extreme cases we have to do it.
I would argue that this legislation responds directly to the needs of the youth, to the needs of the families and to the needs of society. I think we have in this legislation found the right balance. We're able to meet and respond to those three groups: youth themselves, the families and society at large. Adequate safeguards are in place. Only the board will be able to place a child in secure care, only the board or the director of secure care, in an emergency situation, which does arise from time to time. They will be placed in very specialized places.
When I travelled across the country and went to Montreal, to some secure care places outside of Montreal, and also outside of Toronto, I was horrified. I ended up going to these places. And what did I see? Literally, jails with bars; this is their idea of secure care. That's a far, far cry from what we are creating here in British Columbia. I would urge members, if you get an opportunity, to look at some of the information about some of the other secure care places in the country and realize that we are going to be light-years ahead of anything I saw. I also spent some time in Calgary at a centre that's trying to do work with recovery, trying to get young people off drugs, trying to get young people off alcohol. And to realize there just what a task we have, after we've done our assessment and consultation, to try and get these young people moving in a new direction -- it won't be easy at all.
But first we've got to get them off the streets. First we've got to be able to do some sort of an assessment and try to give them options and help them see where there is another way to go. And we can't do that while they're on the streets.
The secure care here in B.C. is anything but a jail. They are going to be centres where the children are well looked after. Yes, there are some obvious constraints, because we have to make sure that they stay in for a period of time to do that assessment. But it is not by any means a jail.
This legislation is specialized legislation, and it requires a specialized response. Obviously there's a very short period of time that children
[1545]
The needs and rights of children and families regarding their personal information, obviously, require a special code that protects those rights while affording the service providers the ability to share the appropriate information. I understand the concerns of the information and privacy commissioner, as I have seen them and hope that he and the ministry will work to resolve the concerns he has identified. I think that certainly will happen.
But, hon. Speaker, I would just urge the opposition, rather than being negative about this -- because I hear that they're going to support it -- to tell us, as I said, what it is that they think is helpful. I think they should have some appreciation
[ Page 16982 ]
for the working group that has just laboured so long and hard, and these experts. I think they should recognize that and recognize what has gone into this and point out where they think the direction is in the right way and also, obviously, then work with us in some of the places that they think there's still some way to go.
I am very pleased, having been the chair of this committee, to be able to speak to this today. I feel quite passionate about it, because I have spent so much time dealing with this. Also, in my own personal experience and in my riding I have dealt with so many young people who are in such desperate, desperate straits. I thank the minister for bringing this forward, and I will certainly be supporting Bill 25 through all the stages.
E. Gillespie: It is a significant pleasure I take today in rising to support Bill 25, a significant pleasure and, I would say, a serious responsibility. Secure care is indeed controversial, as well it should be. Secure care legislation is a dramatic power for government to act when a child is at extreme risk of harm to himself or herself. In this House we have spoken many times, largely through private members' statements, about the rights of children and about the need for services for children in this province. We have always spoken about the need, in this province, to make sure that we take care of all of the children of this province.
Legislation is always about balance, and in this legislation we have worked to balance the rights of the child with the responsibility to act to protect children who are at serious risk of harming themselves. There are a number of protections which exist in the act. The line between helping and harming is tenuous. It's very difficult to make a decision to place a youth in secure care. But the act provides for a number of provisions to give support, both procedural and for human rights.
Notice of hearings will be given to the child and to other people that are significant in the child's life, including the child, youth and family advocate. All young people who are detained will have the opportunity to state their case before the Secure Care Board.
The board itself is composed of a broad mix of people from the community, providing an extra safeguard. Board members will have special training and expertise in matters pertaining to high-risk children. As well, members of the board will reflect various considerations, including the cultural diversity and geographic differences of our province. The appointments to the board will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
[1550]
The board will make decisions in a timely matter. The legislation refers to decisions being made within seven days. Currently there is a very heavy workload in the Provincial Court system. I heard one of the other members referring to the Provincial Court system as perhaps the appropriate vehicle for this. But clearly we need to be able to divert these situations where children are at serious risk of harming themselves, in order to expedite the hearings, in order to treat these matters very quickly. The board will use an informal process, while still ensuring due process. And the Children's Commission will receive copies of each intervention plan to monitor follow-up.
Also, the rights of youth have been enshrined within the legislation, guaranteeing that they be fed, clothed and sheltered according to reasonable standards; that they be free from corporal punishment; that they be informed about their intervention and assistance plans and be consulted about significant decisions affecting them; that they have privacy in discussions with family, their guardian, a lawyer, the child, youth and family advocate, the children's commissioner and other public officials; and that they be able to participate in social, recreational and religious activities; that children receive guidance and encouragement to maintain their cultural heritage; and that they receive guidance and assistance to address the risk that led to their detainment. Provisions for appeal and reconsideration of all decisions are made within this legislation.
I've had some time to think about this legislation in terms of my own life experience and perhaps that of some of my constituents who've spoken to me. I feel very privileged, and I remind myself of that privilege every day -- to be the parent of young children, children who embrace life, who exhibit love, who are well integrated with friends, with school, with community. Every day I recognize the fragile nature of that connection of any child to the rest of society. That very fragile nature can be exploited by people involved in the sex trade. It can be incredibly damaged by addictions to drugs and other substances.
I think every parent and indeed every person in this society in British Columbia needs to recognize that what we appreciate about our children is not necessarily universal, but it is fragile -- that it must be supported at all times. Our children must be supported in order to be able to live full lives.
I had the experience just recently of talking to another parent, a parent who I don't think many people in the community would ever have known had been going through a very rough time with a child for a number of years. This parent was celebrating the recent wedding of a daughter. This was a daughter who had been lost to her father and mother for a number of years, lost due to drug addiction, lost due to the exploitation of the sex trade. This very courageous parent said to me that in celebrating the wedding of their daughter, the lesson he had learned over this period of time was the lesson of love, that parents cannot ever give up on their children, that they must just love, keep on loving and trust in that love.
This legislation will give support to parents and to community for people who are trying to love children, children who seem lost to them, children who are at serious risk of harming themselves, who need indeed to be loved, but who also need the care and security that this legislation will provide. Thank you very much. It's indeed a pleasure to support this legislation.
[1555]
R. Coleman: Good afternoon, everybody.
I take no pleasure, absolutely no pleasure, in speaking to this legislation, not because I don't believe in secure care but because it's so sad that we need legislation like this in our province. This legislation is about human tragedy. This legislation tells us that we have something happening on our streets that clearly tells us that we have to intervene as government.
That means this: it means there's child abuse; it means there's drug addiction; it means there are predatory attacks on young people. It means that people are being pushed into
[ Page 16983 ]
trades and pushed into areas and decisions in their lives that they shouldn't have to make, because we've let them down. It means that it's a society that has a portion of it that really needs to get itself in check, because some young people out there are really suffering.
I've had the unfortunate circumstance of observing it in both of the areas that this bill actually tries to address relative to young people; that's those people engaged in the sex trade and in substance abuse. There's nothing and no way you could describe that human tragedy. There's no way you could describe the fact that this could be happening to someone so young.
This bill provides for the involuntary secure care of young high-risk persons. High-risk persons are those who are engaged in substance abuse and those involved in the sex trade. It allows for 72-hour intervention to take young people off the street by law enforcement and put them into some form of secure care.
I want to stop there for a second, because in that 72-hour period we'd better have the facilities there for these people. We'd better not be putting them into substandard facilities. We'd better not be putting them into facilities where there aren't the professionals that can help them. We'd better not be making the mistake of only making the problem worse or making the mistake by not having the investment on the ground to make this thing work. A piece of paper is not going to address this problem. A piece of paper is only going to give direction to move towards helping to solve this problem.
We'd better realize that we do not have, at this point in time, the facilities and the services to back this bill up. We'd better realize that we have got facilities in this province that should be enhanced to help these young people. That's why I take no pleasure in the discussion of this bill today.
Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I'd like to reserve my position in this debate and move adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I want to call Committee of Supply to discuss the Premier's estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS
(continued)
On vote 9: office of the Premier, $2,713,000 (continued).
The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were some questions that the Leader of the Opposition wanted answered. Here are the answers. With respect to Stu Backerman, I went back and checked, and I was advised that there was a possibility of perception of conflict of interest with respect to that particular contract. Out of an abundance of caution, my office took the action that they felt was appropriate.
Second question with respect to Mr. Chilton and Now Communications: he neither negotiates with them nor has any approval authority with respect to any contracts that may take place with Now Communications.
Third, the salary of Mr. Hans Brown: it's $122,000 per annum.
G. Campbell: I'd just like to ask the Premier this question. There was a perception of conflict of interest. Was the perception that Mr. Backerman had worked on the minister's campaign for the leadership?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that in itself would constitute a complete perception of conflict -- or conflict. I think that I would now be giving you some general comments. I don't know all of the specific details. But I think a question about tendering contracts and perhaps not having a process in place, if you add all of that with the political connection, could lead to a perception of conflict.
G. Campbell: Just one last question on this matter to the Premier: did the Premier's chief of staff review this with the conflict commissioner prior to it? Or was the decision made without reference to the conflict commissioner?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There was no reference to the conflict commissioner, since the question that one was dealing with was a contractor and not a cabinet individual or an MLA.
G. Campbell: Just so the Premier knows, I intend to ask a few more questions about the Premier's Office. Then I would like to talk about intergovernmental relations and what's taking place with regard to that -- just so the Premier has a sense of where we're going.
First, with regard to his office, the Premier has said that all ministries are required to have business plans, performance plans against which ministers can be measured. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the ministries are supposed to have performance plans, but they obviously have programs and projects that are within their domains. They are to constantly monitor them, of course, and then report at the end of the year whether it's been overspent or underspent. I understand that the hon. leader is asking with respect to actual performance plans. I think the ministries have them, and at the end of the year, that's the assessment that comes in, in terms of whether they have underspent or overspent and how they've done.
[1610]
G. Campbell: On June 6 the Premier informed the House that ministries and Crowns must prepare performance plans with clearly defined strategic priorities and performance measures; that, I assume, is correct. Can the Premier tell me where those performance plans and those measures are going to be reviewed? In what area or jurisdiction of government does the Premier expect those plans to be reviewed so ministers or staffs can be held to account?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe those are the regular performance plans that they do every year. The reviewing body is the Treasury Board.
[ Page 16984 ]
G. Campbell: My question to the Premier is: does the Premier actually have a performance plan that's in place for all of government -- for the cabinet, for his colleagues in cabinet? And if he does, are there measurable goals and objectives within those plans?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are ministry-based performance plans and models that exist. There is no such plan in fact for the Premier's Office, I've discovered.
G. Campbell: I understand there's no plan for the Premier's Office, because we asked for one and didn't get one. What I am concerned about is who is holding these ministries and these ministers to account. How does that come forward? It comes to Treasury Board. And if it's coming to Treasury Board, what are the remedies that are put in place? How is the accountability flowing through to the Premier?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Treasury Board reports on any of the matters, on any decisions that are made or deferred. They come to cabinet.
G. Campbell: One of the challenges that I face on the outside looking in, I think, is to determine how words are transformed into actions, how words and actions are transformed into results. One of the former employees of the Premier's Office was Mr. Gunton. I'm sure the Premier is aware of that. Mr. Gunton was given a task on August 30, 1999. That task was, and I'll quote directly:
When we asked for that information, we were told by the Premier's Office that there were no records that were relevant to a freedom-of-information request. Can the Premier tell me what happened with Mr. Gunton's report that was due in September of 1999?"You will ensure smooth transition of your major project files to agreed-upon senior staff over the coming weeks. To accomplish transition, please provide me with the list of major project files for which you are responsible. As well, please include a summary of the current 'state-of-play' on each of these files and your proposals for the appropriate steps to ensure a smooth transition, including your recommendations regarding the senior official best able to assume responsibility for each file. I'd appreciate receiving this information as soon as possible, but by September 10, 1999, in any case."
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy minister tells me that he's never heard of the letter. He doesn't know who signed the letter. I'd be happy to answer the question once the hon. leader tells me who signed the letter.
G. Campbell: It's personal and confidential. I'm not sure if it's a letter or a memorandum from the office of the Premier, signed by George Ford and countersigned by Mr. Gunton on August 3, 1999.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: My deputy tells me that he in fact is not aware of that. This is the first he has heard of it. He'd be happy to provide you with any information he can get.
G. Campbell: My question to the Premier is: is the Premier or his deputy minister aware of any information at all coming to the Premier's Office from Mr. Gunton since August of 1999?
[1615]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by the deputy minister that the answer is no. And I can tell you personally, from my personal knowledge during the last four months, the answer is no.
G. Campbell: Can the Premier or his deputy minister inform the House as to what exactly Mr. Gunton is doing? I'm asking this question because we have asked both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Employment and Investment, who were evidently engaging Mr. Gunton's services. Mr Gunton is currently being paid, I think, in the order of $110,000 a year. I'd be interested in what Mr. Gunton's activities have been over the last number of months. Who would be following that and tracking that so we can determine, once and for all, what exactly he has been doing since August 27, 1999?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: My deputy minister tells me that at this time we don't have that information. I would be very happy, in fact, and I will undertake to provide a detailed description, through the deputy minister, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to any information that we may be able to find throughout government.
G. Campbell: One last appointment to the Premier's Office that I would like to discuss is Mr. Schreck. I understand that Mr. Schreck has been appointed by the Premier as a special adviser to the Premier. I believe that his salary is in the order of $90,000 a year. Can the Premier confirm that and inform us as to what Mr. Schreck's duties are?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy minister is looking for the salary, and we will confirm that in a moment.
The special adviser, David Schreck, works with government agencies on the effective use of new communications technology to help keep all British Columbia citizens informed of government programs and policies. What he has been doing is updating and improving the government's Internet sites. He's been making access to information easier for citizens with, of course, new emphasis on the use of e-mail to communicate with government. He has special expertise and skills in that area. He's been one of the computer whizzes, and he's been assisting us to make sure that we do some of that work.
G. Campbell: As the Premier knows, we actually have an Information, Science and Technology Agency in British Columbia, which is highly skilled in this -- I would suggest more skilled than Mr. Schreck. I'm interested in what the difference is between the talents that Mr. Schreck brings to these objectives and the talents that ISTA brings.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the priorities in my mind is to make sure that the information is accessible and that it's accessible in a form that's readable and comprehensible to the citizens. When David Schreck was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I remember, this was an issue that he was very interested in. He actually worked with the office of the privacy commissioner and, I understand, actually worked with the legislative staff here with respect to the legislation as well.
Yes, ISTA has a role, but Mr. Schreck's role is to actually push the envelope a bit and make sure that we continue to do more than we're doing right now.
G. Campbell: Beyond a personal interest in this or a political interest in this, can the Premier tell us what Mr. Schreck's qualifications are for this task?
[ Page 16985 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Mr. Schreck is a man
He has a doctorate. He's been a business person managing certain organizations in the past. He has political skills. He was a member of the House and dealt with, in fact, information technology as part of his responsibilities, pushing the envelope here to make sure that information from the Legislature was accessible to people.
[1620]
G. Campbell: I will leave this there, just to see if the Premier can confirm this for me. The Premier's not aware of any special technical training Mr. Schreck has had, of any special software training that Mr. Schreck has had. I recognize he has an interest in this, but he has no technical training that I know of, and I'm asking the Premier if he knows of any special technical training, whether it's engineering training or technology training, that Mr. Schreck brings to this job.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Actually, I'm just learning about computers myself. I'm a bit of a technopeasant. But I understand you don't need any training to learn about programming and computers. You can actually do that yourself. I'm beginning to do that. He's been working on this issue a long, long time. I'd be very happy, if we had time, to actually bring him in here and let him tell you what he can or can't do.
The other part of one of the earlier questions the hon. member asked is that Dr. Schreck's salary is $93,947 a year. You know, it's interesting, hon. Chair. There are many great men in the world who actually haven't been to school very long.
An Hon. Member: And women.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Men and women. Einstein was one of them; I understand that he dropped out of school. So was Churchill, I understand. So I don't think that it's a
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I'm not talking about
G. Campbell: The issue here is not about Mr. Schreck's innate intelligence, although I guess we could have a debate about that. It is simply about the fact that the taxpayers of B.C. are paying someone $93,000 a year, I assume, to develop programs which we already have an organization, ISTA, in place to do. Mr. Schreck, I understand from the Premier's answer, does not have any technical training that he can apply to this. Therefore I'm not sure what Mr. Schreck's role is other than to politicize these activities as opposed to dealing with moving, as the Premier said, the edge of the envelope with regard to Internet, e-mail -- all of those sorts of new technologies which are available to us and the public and which I would encourage the government to proceed with and pursue.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: What technical training he has
G. Plant: I'm not going to pursue the question of Mr. Schreck's personal expertise anymore, but I am intrigued to hear that the office of the Information, Science and Technology Agency is apparently inadequate for the task of assisting the government in becoming more able to communicate with the public of British Columbia through technology. That seems to me what the agenda of Mr. Schreck is. Maybe he's just a cheerleader for technology around government.
I guess the question I wanted to ask was whether
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sometime towards the end of February or early March.
G. Plant: Has Mr. Schreck had an opportunity over the last four months to develop a plan of action? Presumably there's some sort of document he's been working on to outline the plan for government to become better at whatever it is the government is not currently good at. It would be interesting
I personally am very interested in the question of how government can improve the way it communicates with citizens. If David Schreck has been on the job thinking, presumably exclusively, about that issue, then presumably he's done some papers for the Premier. I'm sure they would make for good reading. I bet the head of the Information, Science and Technology Agency would be excited to see them too. Is there some work product as a result of Dr. Schreck's efforts? Or is he still sort of thinking about what it is he's going to be doing?
[1625]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: He has been working for the last four months, and I'd be happy to actually provide the opposition with information that they're looking for. I'd be happy to speak to David Schreck and get him to put it in writing as to what he's been doing for the last four months and what the plans are.
G. Plant: I'll take the Premier up on that invitation, and I look forward to seeing what's happening.
I observe, for example, that there are three provinces in Canada that have introduced legislation to accommodate the fact that there's legal uncertainty around electronic commerce. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has enacted a model code that provides the legislative framework for electronic commerce. I think it's been put, as I say, on the calendar or on the floor of at least three legislatures in Canada. I've been wondering why British Columbia isn't a leader; we're already a follower.
I wasn't aware that the government had available to it this additional resource in the form of David Schreck.
[ Page 16986 ]
An Hon. Member: Dr. Schreck.
G. Plant: Or Dr. Schreck.
It seems to me that we're already falling behind in lots of ways in terms of providing leadership in the technological revolution. That's just one example, it seems to me, of how we're not leading the charge; rather, we're following. I know there is work being done inside the Information, Science and Technology Agency around this. My concern, frankly, is that if there is a free-floating satellite drifting around outside the Premier's Office, in the form of a special adviser to the Premier, that's the kind of position and the kind of person that tends to cause trouble inside established agencies like ISTA, rather than make their job easier.
Maybe the Premier could just assist me a little bit further in understanding how it is that the government did not have access to adequate resources to update and improve its Internet sites until Dr. Schreck came along, that the government apparently did not have access to sufficient resources to make access to key information easier for citizens before David Schreck came along and that apparently the government was unable to recognize the need for a new emphasis on the use of e-mail to communicate with the government before Dr. Schreck came along.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The legislation that the hon. member alludes to is drafted. If the hon. members opposite agree that they will allow it to pass in one day, I think we can perhaps prepare it for introduction next week and have it passed along with the balanced-budget law.
G. Plant: Actually, I thought the Premier was somebody who supported the idea of involving the public in the legislative process. It would seem to me that a good way of doing that would be for the government to table its legislation and to leave it on the order paper for a while and let the public have a look at it. Then perhaps, after a few months of looking at it, the public would have a chance to determine whether it's adequate for the need. The legislative draftspeople would have a chance to do what they do, which is correct the government's legislation on an annual basis, and we in the opposition and private members would have a chance to make sure that the bill worked. So I think the Premier would surely agree that that's a better way to make legislation than the one-day idea that he, I am sure unintentionally, suggested a minute ago.
[1630]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know we're not in court, but we are in the Legislature. My learned friend on the other side has made a wonderful suggestion, and we will do exactly that.
G. Campbell: I want to move to intergovernmental relations and the intergovernmental relations secretariat with the Premier, if I may. I guess the first question that I have for the Premier is if the Premier could highlight for us what he thinks the top five, say, priorities are with regard to intergovernmental relations.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the top priority for this government is to make sure that we begin to work and continue to work cooperatively with the federal government -- unlike Ontario, unlike Alberta. They're constantly bickering with Ottawa, and I want to make sure that we work with Ottawa cooperatively. I think politicians of the nation benefit when there is political posturing and political bickering; it is the people that benefit when politicians work together.
I've attempted to do that. I've attempted to change the environment that I found when I got into the Premier's chair. I've had several meetings with the Prime Minister, and I've met with other Premiers. I've talked to many of them on the phone in several conferences. And I think it's important that we work together. That is the top priority. Everything else is subsumed under that priority.
One can talk about health care, which is an issue that faces the entire nation, not just British Columbia. What happened with the northern doctors isn't an issue just in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country. What's happening in the hospitals isn't just an issue in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country. What's happening with the nurses shortage isn't just an issue in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country.
One of the priorities -- the top priority -- is to start working cooperatively with the federal government, and we've attempted to begin that process. Under that main priority, we have issues such as the environmental issues, and there could be several under that; the issues around Nanoose Bay; the issues around the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre; the health issues, of course; and the issues around transportation and investment in transportation and infrastructure.
All of those issues are very, very important, and we are currently in discussions with the federal government on those issues, as we are on the national children's agenda. We would dearly love for the federal government to provide us with some more resources in accordance with their priority of the national children's agenda so that we can actually continue to do the work that we started with this budget -- building a comprehensive, universally accessible child care system in this province which would be the envy of the world.
Those are the kinds of priorities we have. It isn't just one priority. We are prepared to work and talk to the federal government, to work with them unconditionally to make sure that people in British Columbia get the benefit of cooperation between two governments, rather than have politicians bickering over issues that can be better worked out by cooperation.
G. Campbell: First, let me say that I certainly agree that it's important for the government to work with the federal government -- and with other levels of government, for that matter, whether it's municipal or provincial governments -- to make sure that we accomplish what's best for the people of British Columbia. I was frankly appalled at this government's activities with regard to the federal government on a number of occasions.
The Premier has mentioned Nanoose Bay. We have said in the past that we think it's important for the federal government to restore the confidence of British Columbians and, in fact, to restore the land mass and enter into the lease that was thoroughly debated and honestly negotiated, which this government then decided to throw out the window.
There are a lot of messages, there's no question, over the last nine years which have gone right against the federal government's interests and, more importantly, against the interests of British Columbians. Let's just start with that one.
[ Page 16987 ]
I've got a number that I think it's important for us to understand. Once we've all agreed that we want to cooperate with the federal government, once we've all agreed that it is critical for us to make sure we maximize the benefits of British Columbians from the federal-provincial partnership, let me ask the Premier about a number of specifics.
Let's deal with Nanoose Bay, since the Premier brought that up. With regard to Nanoose Bay, has the Premier entered into discussions for the return of that land, for the restoration of the lease, which was openly and, I think, fairly negotiated, so the coastal communities of British Columbia can have that $125 million as a commitment to rebuild their economic future?
[1635]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said earlier, I have raised that issue with the Prime Minister in the last two meetings that I had with him. Government officials are in continuing discussions over that issue. I want to resolve that issue by (1) having the land returned to us in British Columbia -- it's our land -- and (2) with respect to any lease payments over time, make an arrangement with respect to that, an arrangement which might then lead to a Columbia Basin Trust-type of trust that deals with the needs and hopes of the coastal communities in British Columbia.
So yes, there are discussions underway. I don't have any progress to report at this time, but there are many, many areas where discussions are taking place. In the last four months we have not come to a conclusion on any of them, but we're working hard.
G. Campbell: I think that one of the things that's important, in view of the Premier's statements in the past, is for us to recognize that within this House, we all want to accomplish those goals. My question to the Premier with regard Nanoose Bay is: is there not a way that we can encourage all members of the House to be part of those solutions so that the federal government knows that this is not a divisive issue -- that this is where we speak with one voice in the province of British Columbia? I ask that not just with regard to Nanoose Bay, where the Premier is articulating exactly the position that I have articulated to the Prime Minister, but for other issues as well, where we could come together and speak with a united voice to the federal government.
There's only one time that I'm aware of since I was elected to this House -- since 1993 or '94 -- where the Legislature has actually come together and said, "This is something that's important for us all to do" -- where it's properly processed, where it's properly understood by all members of the Legislature so that they can move forward. That was with regard to the previous softwood lumber agreement, where we said it was critical
A second one that I think is critical to all the people of British Columbia
My question to the Premier is: what steps have been taken with regard to Burns Bog, and how does the Premier intend to change this institution so that we can all speak with one voice and come to agreements? There are lots of things we disagree on. But there may be things we actually agree on, where if we do speak with one voice, with a united voice for British Columbia, we will get better results.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I commend the hon. Leader of the Opposition for expressing the sentiment that he does, because I share that sentiment. And I think that when we stand here in this House and we speak the way the hon. leader has spoken, that signifies and symbolizes our determination and will to work together on at least the issues that we talk about in that context.
Let me add another issue to that context, and that's the full restoration of CHST transfers with respect to health and education, particularly health. I think that that's an issue on which there would be no division if that issue came before the House, nor would there be any division on Nanoose Bay or Burns Bog. Burns Bog has become, and is, a symbol of what we need to do environmentally. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.
[1640]
All of these issues are part of the ongoing discussions. I have expressed to the Prime Minister and I have said publicly that Nanoose Bay is a priority for us in British Columbia. Burns Bog is a priority for us in British Columbia. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is a priority for economic purposes for us in British Columbia. There are issues that we are currently negotiating on. These are the issues that we've presented to the federal government, and I'm hoping that we will make progress in the next short while on all of these issues.
G. Campbell: The shame of this is that we have to come to estimates before we're brought together so that we can actually move forward on these agendas. I believe that it's critical for us to establish a process where we can do this before estimates, before we get to the House, before we have to ask questions, where everyone knows what the agenda is, so we can move forward.
I'll give the Premier an example of another issue: the convention centre he's just mentioned. I know that in an interview he explained that there was a cabinet committee that was working on a number of items, including the convention centre. When the member for Okanagan-Penticton asked the minister responsible for that, he didn't know anything about the committee. It seems to me that one of the critical things is for all of us to know where we're going with regard to intergovernmental relations. And if -- I think it was -- the Employment and Investment minister doesn't know about it, it's very difficult for us to know and to add our voices to that.
So I'd like to touch on a couple of other issues to see whether or not the government is working on those or what message they think they can send. Then I would like to deal with the Premier on how we can maybe establish some sort of way of moving forward with these items, because they are in
[ Page 16988 ]
the interests in British Columbians. They're not in the interests of a political party; they're not in the interests of one side of the House or the other. They're in the interests of everybody.
One issue that I would like to ask the Premier about is the marine park. There was an agreement for the pacific marine park with the federal government -- Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy park, I think it was called. My understanding is that, at this point, the federal government has contributed about $30 million dollars to that. The province has not yet contributed its full share of that. Does the province intend to do that as a sign of good faith to the federal government that, in fact, we will carry out our sides of these agreements and negotiations when we're working on them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware that that is a priority with respect to that issue with the federal government. It's a priority with us. In fact, we have ongoing discussions with the federal government on that. We are prepared to take a look at fulfilling our commitments in an appropriate context, and that's what the discussions are about. Greg McDade is the individual who is dealing with this issue. I am acutely aware of the importance of this particular issue.
I want to work with the federal government -- in fact, assist them -- in arriving at a good conclusion, so that it benefits not just the federal objectives but our own objectives. So that's an issue that's a priority for us. But obviously there are concerns, and those concerns are currently under discussion with the federal government.
G. Campbell: That answer, actually, is a little confusing to me. We had an announcement from the federal and provincial governments that they were going to move forward with the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy. As I understand it, the federal government has lived up to its side of the agreement. When the Premier says: "We are going to look at how we can fulfil our commitments
[1645]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. leader misunderstood the thrust of my remarks, and that may be my fault, because I didn't specify the response enough. There are questions around whether or not the province may be able to participate in kind rather than in cash in terms of the contribution from the province. I think that's in terms of the land. Those are discussions that are underway. I don't have all of the details, nor would I want the details until there is an agreement in place and I'm told to then approve it. I'd be happy to share those details. I'd be happy to have the deputy minister responsible, in fact, advise and brief the hon. Leader of the Opposition in confidence about the state of those discussions. I don't have all the details at this time.
G. Campbell: I appreciate that offer, and we'll certainly take the Premier up on that offer. I would just like to understand this: is this about changing the agreement, or not? Did we agree to a $30 million cash outlay, as the federal government did? Is there an argument about whether land is cash? What is the disagreement about? What was not clear in the agreement that we're now looking for specificity on?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an agreement in place, and we intend to live up to that agreement. The question is whether or not that agreement is lived up to through providing additional lands or money to deal with those issues. I think that's an appropriate question. If one has the land that's in an appropriate area to enhance what needs to be done, that may be an appropriate thing to do.
G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of issues before the federal government that are, I would assume, on the provincial-federal agenda, on the mutual provincial agenda. One of the most critical ones is with regard to the softwood lumber agreement. I wonder if the Premier could give us an update on what exactly is taking place. What voice and what role is the government taking in trying to push B.C.'s agenda and interests at the softwood table? I know from dealing with a number of other people across the country that other provinces are very actively engaged in this. There was, I think, a fair amount of concern that we were in a relatively uncertain position in the province of British Columbia. Really, the only people that are going to pay the price for that are the people that live and work in forest communities and depend on the forest industry for their jobs. Could the Premier give us an outline of exactly what's taking place with that?
And I'd ask the Premier once again: is there a way that we can establish a process where we are all included in this initiative, so that we are all aware of what position the province is taking? There may be issues where we disagree with it one way or another, but I think, again, if we think about the best interests of British Columbians, we'd be better to be informed before the fact rather than after the fact. We would be better to be looked upon as allies rather than adversaries with regard to this. That's how the people of British Columbia will benefit.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know that the Ministry of Forests, and particularly Deputy Minister Doney, has been in constant discussions with the industry. Industry is trying to develop a B.C. position. The last I had heard, there was no consensus on a B.C. position amongst the industry, and I want to make sure that government doesn't move off in a particular direction without having a consensus built up amongst our producers in British Columbia. That's the crucial issue for us. Once we have a British Columbia position agreed to -- significant consensus in British Columbia on that -- we would very actively and vigorously pursue that position at the national table, so that can be then carried into negotiations with the U.S.
I would be happy from time to time, once there is significant development, to have the hon. Leader of the Opposition briefed on it, because these aren't secrets. These are issues of common concern to all British Columbians. I am concerned about what's happening in the industry right now. There is a strike, and there are 12,000 people not working, and that's going to cause fiscal issues and concerns for us in British Columbia. I want to make sure that we have an industry that's vibrant, an industry that has unhindered, unfettered access to the market to the extent possible.
I know that the IWA has said that they support free trade. I know that some parts of the industry don't support free
[ Page 16989 ]
trade; other parts of the industry in British Columbia support free trade on lumber. I also know that the issue involved in that is that if you have unfettered free trade, how does that impact the export of raw logs from British Columbia?
These are very complex issues, and I want to make sure that there is consensus amongst us before we begin at the government level to then advance that consensus.
[1650]
G. Campbell: I appreciate the difficulty that the public policy issue presents. The concern I have is that other provinces have spent literally the last 18 months pursuing their particular provincial agendas. One of the things that I think we have to do is pursue a public policy agenda for the province of British Columbia. What is the public position of the government? The Premier says that the IWA is for free trade and others are for free trade. What is the public policy position of the government? Does the government agree that that is the route we should be pursuing? Should we be pursuing freer trade, free trade, unrestricted trade? And how are we pursuing that with the rest of the country?
As the Premier knows, our first job in British Columbia is to have British Columbia's voice have full amplification at the national table. One of the concerns that I have is that the minister responsible, I think, is just about now thinking to himself: "I guess this is going to be an issue." We know there are major issues that are going to come up that revolve around it, and British Columbia is the major player that has in fact suffered under the softwood lumber agreement that was signed previously.
We are losing the opportunity to shape the agenda. I suggest we've lost it. We're now responding to it. The challenge in British Columbia is for the government to say, "This is where we're going; this is what we want; this is how we intend to get there," so that we can pursue that at the national table and follow that pursuit up with the negotiation at the American table, which is going to take place in a very uncertain time with regard to their politics and a very uncertain time even with regard to their focus.
I am concerned we've lost the agenda, and I wonder how we're going to grab the agenda back in British Columbia. This changes in 2001 -- April 1, 2001. We have to be prepared; we don't have much time to set a public course of action. I guess my point to the Premier is that I'd like to know what public course of action the government intends to pursue -- so we can bring British Columbians together around that public course of action, so we can bring Ottawa together around that public course of action, so we can make sure we succeed when we deal with the United States.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I share the opposition leader's concern. I have a view on this, and I have said very clearly that I support free trade. But I also have to look at the issue of the raw log exports, and, as the leader in British Columbia, I also have to look at whether or not the industry that's the backbone of the economy in British Columbia is in consonance with that approach. The difficulty that we currently have is that the industry isn't of one mind on that issue.
There are huge divisions, and I think the challenge is to bring them around to one point of view so that we can advance that point of view -- a general consensus, because you can't have absolute consent or agreement on these kinds of issues. So I have a very clear perspective on it. I support free trade, with appropriate provisions for the protection of raw log exports and things of that nature.
We will pursue that agenda. We have a federal-provincial working group meeting taking place, I believe, on July 5. Lee Doney, the deputy minister, is coming in to brief us with respect to the latest developments that have taken place on the ground, so that we can begin to do what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking.
G. Campbell: Once again, I suggest to the Premier that it might be better if we found a process which would include all members of this House, or all parties of this House, so that we could speak with one voice for British Columbia politically, as well as one voice publicly. I'd welcome his suggestions on how we might do that.
I have one last item. I know there are many, many more with regard to the federal-provincial agenda. Actually, I have two, quickly. One is with regard to the current transportation policy, and whether or not British Columbia is getting a fair share of the dollars that we're sending back to the federal government. I believe we are not. I believe, again, that speaking with one voice, we will be far more effective in securing the contributions that our taxpayers send to the federal government and getting those back so that we can actually watch as our transportation system improves. Can the Premier tell me what initiatives have been taken with the federal government with regard to that and what action he's hoping will happen within the next year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we in fact just mandated the Minister of Transportation and Highways to engage in direct negotiations with the federal government to try and get our share of the transportation investment money. I believe that we need to do that vigorously; I agree. If there are any suggestions that the hon. leader has to make to government, we'd be happy to receive them and work on a combined cooperative strategy from this Legislature. There's no difficult in that.
[1655]
G. Campbell: One last thing that I'd like to have the Premier's quick comment on is with regard to intergovernmental transfer payments. Again, I think British Columbia has been shortchanged with regard to how that transfer payment system works. We're shortchanged with regard to direct equalization payments; we're shortchanged with regard to employment insurance. Someone in British Columbia is treated differently. Someone who is out of work in British Columbia is treated differently than someone who is out of work in Newfoundland or New Brunswick. I believe we in British Columbia are willing to contribute to equalization so that we have a national standard, but I think that should be done once.
My question to the Premier is
[ Page 16990 ]
for moving forward to rebalance that system so British Columbia citizens are treated fairly with regard to the transfer payments from the federal government.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: While I understand the thrust of the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I don't understand the specific question. I agree with him that we are a province that gives and receives very little from the federal government by way of equalization, and that is because we've been fortunate to be one of the have provinces in the country.
I know there are always discussions as to the equity in the way those programs are structured -- whether British Columbians receive full value for the money that they contribute to the federation. That's always a question that is a vexing one for all British Columbians in every area. I'd be happy to hear from the hon. Leader of the Opposition as to what specific suggestions he has that I carry to the federal table to ask that there be regional equity, perhaps even provincial equity, in the kinds of programs that are available, in the way they're structured and in the way the individual benefits accrue.
G. Campbell: I would be glad to work with the Premier with regard to that.
I want to bring this into focus for me today, the discussion we've had today. I believe that one of the critical things that we have to do in this province is to restore trust between the government and the public. I think you do that by saying what you mean and meaning what you say and carrying it through. I think actions speak far louder than words. And unfortunately, we have a government whose record is one where they have often let people down. They have often done actually the opposite of what they've said. I think that's a shame, and I think it's reflected in a number of activities the government has taken. I believe it's critical that we have accountability, that we have true performance measures and that those performance measures are for the Premier, for the cabinet ministers and for every MLA. And I believe the public should have the opportunity to hold people to account for that.
[1700]
Unfortunately, what I've generally heard today is a fair amount of drift. I think the sense in the public is that there is a significant amount of drift in the province. I believe the critical thing for us to do is to give the public a chance to pass judgment on nine years of mismanagement, on nine years of ineffective activity. Whether it's intergovernmental relations, where we had basically an eight-year war launched by the NDP and carried out by the cabinet and the members of this government, whether it was the war on investment, whether it was the war on the private sector and people who had jobs in the province of British Columbia -- the forest industry, the mining industry, small business, etc., -- I have not heard today a plan to move us deliberately, directly and measurably forward. I've heard lots of words but no specifics.
So, hon. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion that's before us: Be it resolved that the motion before the House to approve the expenditures of the Premier's Office be amended by reducing the amount to $1.
The Chair: The amendment to the motion by the Leader of the Official Opposition reads: "Be it resolved that the motion before the House to approve the expenditures of the Premier's Office be amended by reducing the amount to $1."
[1705]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Dalton | McKinnon | Masi |
| Roddick | J. Wilson | Barisoff |
| van Dongen | Symons | Thorpe |
| Krueger | J. Reid | Stephens |
| Coleman | Hawkins | Hogg |
| Nebbeling | Weisbeck | |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Mann Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Cashore | Conroy |
| Smallwood | Miller | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | Ramsey | G. Wilson |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Gillespie |
| Streifel | Walsh | Kasper |
| G. Clark | ||
The Chair: To maintain the status quo, I vote in opposition.
Vote 9 approved on division.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:09 p.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
[1710]
Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading on Bill 27.
SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2000
(second reading)
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. It requests one-twelfth of the voted expenses as pre-
[ Page 16991 ]
sented in the 2000-01 estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government while the estimates debates are completed.
The first interim supply for the fiscal year granted by the Legislative Assembly was for one-quarter of the tabled expenses for voted expenses, and that funding is exhausted on June 30. Therefore this second interim supply is required to provide for the continuation of government programs for one additional month while we conclude estimates debate.
I now move second reading of Bill 27.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. In accordance with established practice
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mind if you ruled in between; it didn't really matter to me, but that's fine.
I just want to make a few comments on this bill -- interim supply. It is a matter of fact that the House has almost completed the estimates of this fiscal year. I believe we have some estimates continuing in Committee A -- the Public Service estimates -- and we also have some estimates on B.C. Ferries to complete. As a result, we're very close to the end of the fiscal year.
I want to make a few comments about the timing of this, because there's been an awful lot of
The government also took the unusual step, I think, of placing on the order paper a motion that reflected the informal discussions that members of this House had around potential changes to the standing orders. That motion still remains on the order paper. It's unclear yet to the opposition; we haven't been advised as to whether or not the intention of the government is to call that motion. I think that's unfortunate. It does have a bearing on the way the estimates work.
I think the members of the opposition have been diligent in the process of estimates for this year in trying to keep to a reasonable time frame. They've done that, I think, very well. I believe we are very, very close, anyway, in the numbers of hours -- although that's not always the most accurate reflection of the way estimates have gone -- that the House used last year in Committee of Supply. I think there was some consensus on both sides of the House that that was not an unreasonable amount of time, and I know that was part of our discussions earlier in the year.
So the estimates for this fiscal year are almost complete. This session has had an unusually -- I would say extremely unusually -- light load of legislation. The legislation that has come forward, for the most part, has been of a housekeeping nature. There've been a few pieces of legislation that the Minister of Finance has brought forward that I would say are fairly significant pieces, depending on how you look at them. I think he would say that they're very significant. One is the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Budget transparency, changes to the capital projects management and now, today, the balanced-budget legislation
[1715]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo calls me a cynic. I didn't arrive here a cynic, hon. member. I've learned that in eight years of opposition. I actually arrived here an optimist. I am perhaps going to leave it -- at this session anyway, whenever that may end -- a confirmed and devout cynic of this government. I hope I'll be able to renew my faith in the democratic process after the next election and come back into this chamber with renewed vigour, hope and sense of optimism. But I diverge from my intended comments.
Mr. Speaker, the reality, though, is that once again we come up against the end of the first interim supply bill -- this calendar date of June 30 -- without having completed the estimates. And that's not through any lack of effort by members of the opposition. I think all members of the House would agree, as I've stated earlier, that's not the case. But we're here again, and there are things that the government has done -- choices the government has made -- in the intervening period from the introduction of the budget and the passing of the first supply bill at the end of March, which have resulted in us being here.
Again, it's partially management of the legislative agenda that some legislation
So those are decisions that the government has made, and we arrive here, yet again, at the end of June without supply. I believe -- although I could stand to be corrected -- that in the eight and a half years I've been here since 1992, on only one occasion did we ever pass supply in its entirety by the end of that first quarter of the fiscal year. Each year it seems we find it difficult, for some reason, to hit that target. At times it has been as a result of a fairly heavy legislative agenda, perhaps very controversial legislation that has consumed great amounts of time of the chamber or complex legislation that's consumed a great amount of time of this chamber. But that's certainly not the case this year.
As I said earlier, the government today has managed to browbeat and coerce, however they manage to, their back bench to support a bill which I know -- well, I won't say all of them -- a significant portion don't believe in. We've seen that once. We also saw a rousing defence of the current Premier by the members of the NDP caucus, which resulted in a tie vote in his estimates.
It was particularly heartwarming to see the former Premier rush to the defence of the current Premier, given his comments in public of late. However, when the real test is put before him, he responds in a different fashion. And as I said to him jokingly after that vote, he's failed to deliver on those
[ Page 16992 ]
commitments as well. One can really add those to his longstanding record of bravado, of great effort and deliverance of no effort, and we'll just tack that one on as well.
So we've had two votes today, both of which one could say are confidence motions against the government. The government has survived them -- in one case by one vote and in another case by a tie. I expect very shortly we'll have another vote on this bill, and at that stage we will move forward.
With those comments, I would just say that the clock is ticking for this government. Eventually they will have to go to the public. Whether the back bench chooses that to happen or chooses the time or whether the Premier chooses the time is yet to be seen, but certainly time runs on, and the public is growing impatient for a chance to deliver their verdict on this government's last four years.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance will close debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I'll be brief in closing. First of all, I just want to correct the record on one point. Actually, my recollection of how often we've had a second interim supply bill is very similar to the opposition critic's. But staff actually provided me with a list, and it turns out that we have not required a second interim supply in '92-93, '94-95, '95-96 or '96-97. So of the nine years that the member opposite and I have been in this chamber -- four years; no, now five -- we've required a second interim supply.
[1720]
I agree with the member, though, very clearly that this should not be a normal practice. In fact, I think he and I agree that the entire process of estimates debate is something that badly needs changing.
Here's another set of decisions that government made. When we were preparing the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, we deliberately did not include in that bill the recommendation of the Enns panel for reform of estimates. The Enns panel had recommended time-limited debate on estimates, which would have made a second interim supply unnecessary. That's what the Enns panel had recommended. So we deliberately did not include those provisions in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, nor did we include in that act some other excellent suggestions for reform of estimates that were advanced by Fred Gingell. The member opposite and I did have a chance to work hard to see if we could agree mutually on a way of reforming House business, including estimates for debate. Regrettably, those efforts to reach a common consensus and agreement have not come to fruition. We have tabled, as the member says, a motion which, as I understand it, contains elements that were not acceptable to the opposition the last time we met.
So the business of reform of estimates remains outstanding, and I think that's regrettable. But in the absence of time-limited debate or more sweeping reform of the sort that Mr. Gingell proposed when he was Chair of Public Accounts, the necessity for this second supply act is obvious.
As the member says, we are very close to conclusion of estimates debate, and it's clear that the full period of one month of additional supply that this bill provides will not be required. So, hon. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments, and with that, I move second reading of Bill 27.
[1725]
Second reading of Bill 27 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 36 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Mann Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Cashore | Conroy |
| Smallwood | Miller | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | Ramsey | G. Wilson |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Stevenson |
| Gillespie | Streifel | Walsh |
| Kasper | G. Clark | Goodacre |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Dalton | McKinnon | Masi |
| Roddick | J. Wilson | Barisoff |
| van Dongen | Symons | Thorpe |
| Krueger | J. Reid | Stephens |
| Coleman | Hawkins | Hogg |
| Nebbeling | Weisbeck | |
[1730]
The Speaker: Members, the second reading passes. In accordance with established practice, under standing order 81, this bill may proceed forthwith through all stages.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill now be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
Motion approved.
Bill 27, Supply Act (No. 2), 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Section 1 of Bill 27 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Mann Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Cashore | Conroy |
| Smallwood | Miller | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | Ramsey | G. Wilson |
[ Page 16993 ]
| Farnworth | Waddell | Gillespie |
| Streifel | Walsh | Kasper |
| G. Clark | Goodacre |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
| McKinnon | Dalton | |
The Chair: According to the established practice, I will vote in favour. The section passes.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[1735]
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Now, hon. Speaker.
Bill 27, Supply Act (No. 2), 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
The Speaker: Members, His Honour the Administrator will be in the chamber shortly, so members could just be seated.
His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000
Protected Areas of British Columbia Act
Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2000
Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act
British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000
The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.
Supply Act (No. 2), 2000
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator does thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.
[1740]
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: With that, hon. Speaker, I want to wish all members safe journeys and a very happy Canada Day weekend and then move that the House do now adjourn until Tuesday at 2 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:52 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MULTICULTURALISM AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)
On vote 39: ministry operations, $12,225,000 (continued).
V. Anderson: We were discussing some of the policies of the minister with regard to immigration, and I was asking briefly about nominees before we broke for lunch. I wanted to ask her about business immigrants. What is the state of that at the moment? Do we have a listing or an account of how many business immigrants we've had, and how many of those have failed and how many have succeeded? What has been our record on business immigration? And have the policies changed any since we've come to this agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: First off, between 1997 and 1998 we had quite a number of immigrants come to this area, due largely to the tenuous state in Hong Kong. We benefited greatly in that period of time from immigration. Since then business immigration has dropped Canada-wide, but we have still maintained a larger share than the rest of the provinces -- or most of the rest of the provinces -- as immigrants continue to favour B.C. In 1999, B.C. attracted 30 percent of the entrepreneurial and 34 percent of the investor immigrants to Canada.
The information you are asking for is not something that we keep. It is a program that is actually run by Immigration Canada. They keep the information -- or may have the information; I shouldn't speak on their behalf -- in terms of success and failure. We don't keep that information here.
[ Page 16994 ]
[1455]
V. Anderson: I'd be curious why we wouldn't be getting a copy of that information. It would certainly affect our policies and programs and activities if we knew what was happening there. If these businesses are coming here and being successful, I would assume we would want to know. I would also assume we would want to know if they're not being successful. So I'm curious why we wouldn't have the information on business immigrants that come into our province.
Also, in that same regard, we've heard continually -- and I wonder if it's changed -- that many business immigrants have come into other provinces like Quebec, for instance, and then the people have moved here, even though the business has been in Quebec. Has that changed any? So if we're involved in a joint cooperation, then it would seem to me that we must be getting information. If not, I would ask why.
Hon. S. Hammell: Your question is right on, because it is something that we do need to know the information on. Once the agreement was signed, we then began a pilot with both Canada and B.C., jointly managed. It is an agreement to implement a two-year business immigration program that is jointly managed and jointly evaluated. We have just issued an RFP to do an evaluation on the pilot. The pilot started -- I'd better be very clear -- on January 15, 1999, and it will end May 31, 2001. As we do that pilot together, we will have the information that you're requesting.
V. Anderson: Could you explain to us what the nature of the pilot is? Is it with one business? Is it with multiple businesses? When you answered earlier, I got the impression that business immigrants were different from entrepreneurial and investors. Are there three programs now instead of two? Are there investors, entrepreneurial and business? Are there three different programs?
Hon. S. Hammell: Under the business category, there are two subsets. One is entrepreneurial and one is investor. Under the investor, there is a new Canadian program for the registration of funds. It's been there before, but it's been reshaped. Going back to the business and the entrepreneur, what we are hoping to accomplish in the pilot is to arrange pre-immigration exploratory visits to the province, attend a pre-immigration orientation seminar and a post-information seminar in Vancouver, and then work to identify what they're doing and how successful they are before final immigration is concluded. So the program will monitor the entrepreneurial component of the business class more closely.
[1500]
V. Anderson: This pilot has been going on, I understand, since January of 1999. So I'm still curious to know how many businesses have been part of that, which came and were interviewed before they started and are still being followed through in the process. Is there one? Are there ten? Are there 100 businesses or persons in this entrepreneurial class at this present time?
Hon. S. Hammell: The lead part of this section of immigration is held by E&I, and we play a supporting role. The work is ongoing within E&I. The preliminary results are coming in. I cannot give you any more than that at this point in time. But I'd be happy to have my staff go through it more thoroughly with you. Then, as results come in, they will be made public, and they will be made available to you.
V. Anderson: I'm a little confused because, as I read the documentation, a lot of it sounds good -- that this is what we're going to do. It doesn't say this is what we've done or this is what we are doing. And so I'm trying to find out what we are doing. It seems strange to me that with this new pilot project -- which involved, as the minister has already said, meeting with these people prior to them starting in business and then following through on them in this period of time -- the minister would not know, as a joint consultation, how many businesses or entrepreneurs they have met with, how many were approved and how many were in the pilot project.
We understand the evaluation is not completed, but it seems to me straightforward that if you're in a partnership on a joint committee with a process that's underway, you know how many you've sat down and interviewed, you know how many were approved, you know how many actually got here, and you know how many are functioning and being studied at this present time. Can the minister explain to me, after a year of being in operation, why this specific, straightforward number-counting isn't available -- much less what it means?
Hon. S. Hammell: I think there is some confusion here, partly because this program is not housed in our ministry. What we do is provide support, in particular policy support, to this particular enterprise. Immigration takes a lot longer than the pilot
[1505]
V. Anderson: I'll be glad to receive the numbers, because as I listen, what I hear is that perhaps we don't have any business immigrants coming at this point. We don't have any entrepreneurial people coming into the province at this point. That concerns me, if that's the case. I can't understand, if we sit in joint management on a joint committee with a joint program, why we wouldn't know the basic, particularly when the minister has just said that at least we are involved in policy discussion. How can you be involved in policy discussion if you don't know what's happening, if you don't have the basic information of whether people
I guess what I'm trying to discover is: do we in actual fact currently have any business immigrants, either entrepreneurial or investor, coming into British Columbia?
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me repeat, so I am perfectly clear. We do not run this program. We support, through policy, the Employment and Investment ministry in this area. We don't have the details here, but I can get them for you through that ministry.
[ Page 16995 ]
Let me tell you that in 1998 there were 1,919 entrepreneurial immigrants; in 1999 there were 1,863. There are numbers that I can share with you for the first quarter of 1999. I can share this complete table with you. Under the investor category, in 1998 there were 1,568, and in 1999 there were 1,471.
V. Anderson: Thank you; that's helpful. Now, in case I misunderstood, I wanted to clarify something the minister just said -- that this program is run by another ministry. Initially I thought she was saying that it was run by the federal government. Is there another ministry of our government -- of the B.C. government -- that's handling the actual business undertaking? Is it Employment and Investment, or is there another ministry, so that this ministry is working with a joint contract in planning it, but another ministry is carrying it out within the B.C. government?
The Chair: Just before recognizing the minister, I'd caution the committee on relevancy. This question, I think, is within order and fair, to get clarification. But if this program is not within this minister's administrative jurisdiction, then we'd probably be well advised to move it to the ministry where it actually fits.
Hon. S. Hammell: Sometimes it's helpful to ground ourselves in this. Immigration Canada is the one that decides entry of the immigrants to British Columbia. So they play a very strong role in the business -- Immigration -- as well as in the family. They are the ones that have the offices in other countries; they're the ones that do all the processing; they do the medical work; they do the criminal checks; they do all that work.
[1510]
There's the family class, and there's the business class. Underneath the business class, there are the entrepreneurs and the investments. The concern -- and I think it is a well-placed concern of the member -- is: how effective is the business class? What we do is
We support Employment and Investment through policy work, because we hold the policy shop. They work with Citizenship Canada, and we have the business reception offices, or however they're called. And that's where we do orientation; that's where we do work with people who are coming. And we're doing it over a period of time to see if extra support on the ground when people get here makes them more successful when they're here.
Now, more details in terms of work -- you know, more details on the actual activity -- I can get for you. We will get it for you, but I don't have it here.
V. Anderson: That helps to clarify the situation. As I mentioned earlier, this would be -- if I hear rightly -- partly the answer the Taiwanese community asked me about in 1991, just beginning to happen. But might I ask for a clarification to see if I'm right? What is the nature of the orientation? Is the orientation of these businesses being done by this ministry or by Employment and Investment, or is it being done cooperatively? I can't understand how this ministry would not be involved if it's doing policy, unless I don't understand what policy means. So perhaps you need to explain to me what policy means in relationship to these programs.
Hon. S. Hammell: What Employment and Investment does is work with those people who come here. They have business counsellors, and they work with them through seminars and through their counselling to find out what opportunities there may be and where you can get advice and information on setting up a business. That is all done through their business counsellors in that ministry. They work with Immigration Canada.
What we do is assist them with the work that the federal government is doing. The federal government may be making changes to the program. We then work with them on a policy basis, on how that policy change from the federal government will impact on their work and what adjustments they have to make. We act as that policy sieve that works between the actual operation on the ground and the federal government, which is actually laying out the rules. So that's our role.
V. Anderson: That's most helpful. In regard to policy -- and I would ask this separately both about the entrepreneurial program and about the investors program -- if my memory serves me right, the investors program in particular had a great deal of difficulty a few years ago and went on hold altogether until it was revised. What are the main requirements of persons coming in to do those two programs? There used to be a ceiling on the amount of money, a requirement of $300,000 or $500,000 or whatever it was that they were going to invest and also, maybe on the entrepreneurial program, on the number of persons that they would be hiring out of Canadian employment. So what are the basic kinds of qualifications in those two programs at this point?
[1515]
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to talk again about the business category and the two pieces under it. For the entrepreneur, which we have just been talking about in terms of trying to make that system work better, the criterion is that you create one job other than your own. There is no money attached to that category. For the investor, you have to have a net worth of $800,000 and be prepared to invest $400,000 in an investment fund.
V. Anderson: I appreciate those comments. I would like to move on from that to the family-class sponsorship and ask if you could share with me what is happening in that at the moment. What kind of numbers do we have of people coming in on family-class sponsorship? Are there perhaps any age or particular characteristic breakdowns that are part of that?
Hon. S. Hammell: In the family class
In particular, there are some things that people are really favourable toward. One is that they've increased the age of the dependents. So where the age cutoff was 19, if I'm correct, it's
[ Page 16996 ]
now 22. So that makes it easier for people coming over to bring their eldest children. They have done some other work in various other areas; I can get you further details on that. But the major change is as that new piece of legislation gets approved and unfolds and has impact.
V. Anderson: Might I ask: had the province been able to be involved in the formation and discussion of that act? Are we involved in it? Or are we reacting or responding rather than participating, according to the
Hon. S. Hammell: I think, because we have had the focus now on immigration -- and we've brought the settlement area in, and now being a participant on the ground in terms of immigration -- that we've had a much larger consulting role. Our consultation, the advice we gave, was considered. And we gave a lot of it. Of course, we didn't get everything that we wanted, and we actually would probably like to have the final say. But clearly this is the federal government's lead piece of legislation; it belongs to them. But certainly we have had a lot more input than we ever had before.
[1520]
V. Anderson: In that input, whether it's family class or business class, is there a particular theme or set of themes that B.C. has put forth, saying that we have certain kinds of characteristics, and this is kind of what we're looking for? I'm taking the extreme, on one hand. It's that Quebec says: "We want people with French." We aren't in that category. But are there any particular themes or characteristics that are underlying what we're asking for when we're talking to them, in either family class or business class?
Hon. S. Hammell: One thing that we have done in terms of our consultation with them is to continually ask for increased settlement dollars. Even though we get significant money, we believe -- and we're just starting to see some research around in-migration from province to province -- that we in fact attract unseen numbers of immigrants. So we're making those arguments and looking for that data. We're looking for settlement money all the time in terms of working with the federal government. But in terms of the act itself, you know, we wanted to make it
Our focus is entirely on ensuring that when people settle here, they integrate quickly into our economy. So not only is the economy better off for it, but so are the people who come here. And they make that transition quickly. So that's where our focus has been. When we ask for the age to go from 19 to 22, and we think that's a good idea, that's all about keeping the family strong and doing those kinds of pieces.
Another thing that we're very pleased with is that we do get a good mix between the family class and the business class in the people who do choose to come to British Columbia. So no, we don't. We're not moving anywhere near what Quebec does in terms of their more proactive and aggressive position around immigration. And no, we are not looking for any particular country. But we are looking for a healthy mix between investment -- the business class -- and the family class.
We do believe that once you've accepted a family, you accept the warts and the ages of that family also. Let me give you an example of that. There is within the bill an attempt to lessen the onus of being able to bring in a child who has a health problem. But because they're part of a family that we do want to include in the provincial makeup, they would be welcome with them.
V. Anderson: With regard to refugee sponsorship, has B.C. done anything as part of policy working with the federal government to encourage non-profit groups in the community and to support non-profit groups, service clubs or churches or whatever else it may be -- synagogues or temples -- that may want the sponsorship? Is there a program to encourage and support and give them assistance in attempting to do refugee sponsorship through the non-profit society?
Hon. S. Hammell: When Premier Dosanjh was the minister responsible in this area, he did in fact meet with the church leaders on the Kosovar refugees and encouraged them to take a role in that resettlement and the acceptance of those refugees. As a consequence of the action by community, that settlement in British Columbia was the most successful in all the country.
It was interesting that at the last anti-racism event that we did in March -- I was just a new minister at that time -- I did meet some people there who had gone through that experience. It was very interesting to talk to them.
Yes, we do, in a more compassionate and ad hoc way, work with the community in terms of refugees through our settlement programs. Again, the refugee program is largely federal. We receive, and then we work through the communities -- not in a formal capacity, other than our general settlement work.
[1525]
V. Anderson: I would encourage you to become more formally involved. There's a tremendous resource there of people who have rallied and would continue to rally to support
On settlement dollars for refugees, what is the situation? The one area I'm thinking of right now is
Hon. S. Hammell: Not in the K-to-12. It is something we would like them to fund, but they don't fund the children in the public school system.
V. Anderson: I presume it's being discussed, and hopefully it might be discussed.
[ Page 16997 ]
What about the Chinese migrants who have come, and the cost that has put upon our province? What has been the arrangement? I presume that probably goes through this ministry as well. What has been the situation for what has happened to date? And in the light of what's happened to date, what's a future plan for this coming year or for what may be happening?
Hon. S. Hammell: This is actually a very difficult area, because what is happening is that the adults are being detained, and the per diem is being paid for by the federal government. They are, in essence, their responsibility. We are assisting in terms of the Corrections facility and the corrections work around the detention orders, but it is essentially a federal decision.
[1530]
The young ones are a different story. I have spoken to Minister Caplan about this a number of times and pressed her quite strongly on assuming some responsibility for the funding for the young children. But through our Family Statutes Act, we are responsible for unaccompanied minors in British Columbia, and we take that seriously. We also take our responsibility to the child, under the UN convention, seriously. We have tried to provide the kind of facilities that are sensitive to the fact that these are children and that we have an obligation to treat them as children and support them in a way that you would children of your own.
So there has been a cost to the provincial purse on this, and we have borne it. But we've continued to press the federal government, because we actually believe it's also their responsibility to assist us in
V. Anderson: We have heard a great deal about the migrants that have come recently by sea and landed secretly, if they could, and have been caught in the process. But we are also aware
Hon. S. Hammell: In 1998-99 there were 3,100 refugee claimants, and I assume that those did not come by boat. These came through other ways and means. This is about 12.4 percent of the Canadian total, which is under our amount of what we generally get through immigration. But there is a debate
V. Anderson: In discussion in the joint committee that we now have working, is there a discussion and is there policy being developed by the B.C. government with regard to how that situation might be dealt with in the most effective and cooperative way?
Hon. S. Hammell: There is ongoing discussion. There is also ongoing discussion within our government. The federal government is the one that has the lead authority in this. They are the ones that choose or do not choose detention. So we are continuing to talk to them about how people are treated when they arrive here in British Columbia. We have not resolved this, but it is an issue that is immediate and ongoing.
[1535]
V. Anderson: I'm aware that groups like the Immigrant Services Society, Inland Refugee, MOSAIC and SUCCESS -- all of these different groups -- are trying to assist and participate in these activities. Is there a coordinated channel by which the government is working with these non-profit community groups, whereby there is some coordination and consistency and whereby their ideas and support can be coordinated with what the government's attempting to do along with the federal government?
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me talk for just a minute about the adults that are being detained in Prince George. Corrections are the people who are doing the actual work of detaining. They are working with community groups to -- we could probably say -- adjust the model to meet the need to be more culturally sensitive and inclusive. They now have some social workers who speak the language and are able to work with the detainees, so there is some adjustment.
I would say this has been difficult for everyone involved. People have been on a huge learning curve. We have, in terms of the children, as well as the Corrections around the people who are detained
So it's a very complex situation. It's new in terms of us having to learn to react to it and how it will play out and what we have to do to be more effective. But Corrections are hooking up more closely with the community. I know that I have spoken with Lillian Tao a number of times around this issue and taken advice as much as I can, as I gain a voice to do input into this situation. So we're hooked up, and so is Corrections.
V. Anderson: I wouldn't want the present crisis with the Fujian refugees to cloud the picture for us. I've personally been involved since 1973 with refugees coming legally and not so legally into Canada. Well, the Inland Refugee group formed as a result of dealing with refugees and trying to support them, because there was no other channel, no other activity, no government recognition in those days.
What I'm asking about is not looking at the Chinese migrants at the moment, but at the everyday 33,000 that you
[ Page 16998 ]
mentioned before -- these people coming in. Instead of the community groups each trying to work independently and not being able to really help, is there a process by which these groups can work with your new ministry now, which we didn't have before, to help both with what the government responsibility is and what the people in the community, the non-profit groups, are trying to accomplish?
[1540]
Hon. S. Hammell: I have asked -- and I haven't got an answer yet -- about whether we have a formal relationship with the Inland Refugee group. If we don't, we should. So what I'm taking from you -- and I'm responding to you -- is that if we're not very tightly organized and connected, then we should be. And I make that commitment: we will be.
V. Anderson: I'd like to move now, for a few minutes
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we have. It's me.
V. Anderson: Yes, we have, and that's the minister. That simplifies that one. It's living proof -- it's there. We'll go from there.
There was also a recommendation that within three months of the appointment, the minister would table a report in the Legislature on the status of employment equity in the public service, including the Crown corporations. The response in the briefing note is that the Legislature hadn't met yet, but there was a report to the cabinet. Is that report now going to be made available to the Legislature and be made public, as it was suggested would have been done had the Legislature been sitting?
Hon. S. Hammell: We are prepared to make the numbers available.
V. Anderson: Pardon? I didn't quite hear.
Hon. S. Hammell: I will make the numbers available to the member.
V. Anderson: I know a secretariat for employment equity has been established. Could you briefly explain: what is the nature of that secretariat at this point? I know it's been developing, but where is it at this point, and what are its chief responsibilities?
Hon. S. Hammell: The secretariat has been operating for about a year. Its mandate is to impact on the public sector. So its mandate includes raising the issue and moving the issue of employment equity in the areas that are funded by government -- such as school boards, hospitals and health regions, and also the Crowns -- as well as working with the public service. It has done a number of things. There's a community advisory board that has been put up to monitor its progress; it has developed partners in an equal opportunity fund for non-profit groups to work with the secretariat to effect change. It has helped with getting open the recruitment access office in Prince George. It has funded 16 job information fairs about public sector careers, has trained 70 community-based employment counsellors, has had a round table with the community leaders on diversity, has developed a 1-877-BY-MERIT toll-free line for foreign credentials information and has developed a web site and information pamphlets about job information.
[1545]
Because I have held the portfolio and been responsible for only four months, I do have to comment that this secretariat is out in the community talking about equity and raising the issues and working with community groups as well as with the public sector. I have beside me Bhagwant Sandhu. He is the executive director of the secretariat and the person largely responsible for implementing the direction of the secretariat.
There's some really interesting work that has been done. There are two I can mention right off the top. One was with Women's Hospital, where we have funded and are working with their human resource department as they are working with their hospital community to develop a diversity and employment equity policy within the hospital. We expect that we would take that pilot project and then have a framework or a model that we could then use in other hospital settings.
The secretariat has also worked with the BCTF and the aboriginal community. At the last AGM of the BCTF, the teachers agreed to waive seniority where the hiring of aboriginal teachers is concerned. They feel, as do we, that until you start moving teachers into the authority and role model figure of the classroom teacher -- and there have to be aboriginal teachers there, as well as people from other backgrounds -- you won't get that positive response from the aboriginal children. We have a serious problem with the retention of aboriginal students in the high schools, which you of course know.
The secretariat is out there working with the communities, with the job fair. We have a job fair coming up again at SUCCESS. Again, we get the other Crown corporations, as well as ministries, involved in saying to people what it is to become a member of the public service or be able to work for a Crown corporation. We're working with people so that they can make strong applications and present themselves well as they work towards -- or at least they look seriously at -- a career within this large government sector.
V. Anderson: I thank the minister. I've been at some of the job fairs, and I see your executive director in a number of places besides the job fair. So I do know he gets around, and I'm delighted.
Now, one of their requests was for an office of visible minorities to be established. Has that happened? And if so, what is it; and if not, why not?
Hon. S. Hammell: No, we haven't. We intend, at least at this point, to continue working through the secretariat in terms of all the communities.
V. Anderson: You mentioned the one about foreign credentials a few moments ago, and that's one I hadn't touched
[ Page 16999 ]
on earlier. Is the ministry helping to develop that process? I know it's there somewhat with the credentials process, but it's a critical one. We have so many taxicab drivers and persons working in other opportunities who have skills that we should be using. That is discouraging to many people who come here to the land of opportunity and find that they have various skills that they're not able to use. I think it's crucial that that be brought forward.
[1550]
Hon. S. Hammell: We're working at the foreign credential issue from a number of angles. First, I'd like to acknowledge the concern. As I go out into the community and talk to people around employment equity, I hear this theme again and again and again -- that people are credentialed. They have skills, and they can't put those skills to use in this country because of a number of barriers. I take this area very, very seriously.
In the secretariat, the 1-877-BY-MERIT number is a place where people can describe and where we can begin to collect data around whether there is a cluster, in particular, of continued problems with a particular set of credentials. On average, the line receives about five calls daily, and the calls about accreditation systems of professional associations have not yet shown a very clear pattern. Again, it's a pretty large and diffuse problem. We know we have the problem.
Let me give you an example. There was a person waiting on table at the faculty club at UBC -- which is obviously a few years ago, because it isn't there anymore. He was a neurosurgeon in China. With all the weight of UBC, plus a member of the faculty club who was going to champion this person's cause, they could only move him to a lab technician within our system. That just gives you a kind of insight into the magnitude of the problem.
We have that problem around nurses. I actually believe -- and we are working on it -- that we will find nurses in our home province who are not credentialed and that we will help them get credentialed, which will assist in terms of our nursing shortage. I think there are some solutions at home.
This is a very serious problem. The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism federally has asked if she could work with us on this problem. She's done some initial work. I guess I'm just saying to you that yes, it's a very serious problem. I'll give you some specifics that we've done around it. A labour market information package was developed with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. HRDC information is being disseminated overseas, and credential evaluation information is included.
The key is to get out to the incoming immigrant, to have them have a realistic assessment of their credential before they come here. For example, in Manitoba they have gone to the Philippines and worked with nurses in the Philippines to ensure that their credentials were there before they came. That appears to be one way of starting to deal with this. But it is a very serious problem.
We held a business diversity forum for employees to present the economic advantages of a diverse workforce, and we sponsored that in February. We're working with relevant credential evaluation agencies like International Credential Evaluation Services, ICES, and Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, ITAC, employers and regulatory bodies to develop assessment tools for specific professions -- trades such as nursing and automobile trades. We're working with the health sector employers and unions to mitigate the current nursing shortage -- which, again, I've talked about -- by developing access routes to nursing occupations for landed immigrants, people who are here.
I guess what I would say is that I think this is a very serious problem, but it's very, very complex. One act or set of actions will not make a huge cure across the board. You have to look at it so that you can figure out if you're going to move in one direction, whether that has any transference as you look at other areas that you need to credential. The area that we're going to focus on first, to see if we can do any serious breaking down of the barriers, is the nursing.
[1555]
V. Anderson: Sometimes out of difficulties come new opportunities. One may help to solve the other. I was trying to think -- and it won't come to me at the moment -- of a group in New Westminster that is working with new immigrants who have professional and other degrees and is helping them to get orientation. One of the things they are finding very effective is that they're getting them in touch with businesses and organizations who begin to come and speak to them and getting them to know the top people in these organizations, who have then opened many doors for them. I'll get that name for you and make sure whether you've been in touch with them, because I think they have a very excellent program. It was under HRDC. It may have switched over automatically, but I know there was some confusion in that. So I will get that to you.
I'll just go back to one other that I had meant to do originally. It comes out of this because I know that one of your members in the equity is now working for Multiculturalism B.C. I wanted to go back for a moment and ask if there are any new initiatives in the Multiculturalism B.C. office that have come up -- new themes or new adjustments in that area in the last while.
Hon. S. Hammell: I think the work that I would consider very important
If we think about it, we have a province that
Now, of course, we have the traditional work, and we're refining and doing better at the settlement work. We have the only professional settlement workers organization in the
[ Page 17000 ]
country. So we have workers on the front line who are interested in not only becoming more professional but honing their skills, learning to do their job better, and we are supporting them doing that work. I think that is incredibly important because that impacts on the front line. I think that the work of the equal opportunity secretariat, as it moves forward, has in fact created a heightened awareness in that 33 percent of their right to participate fully, which includes the public sector, in the activities of the province. It's empowering, and giving permission and getting acceptance and just stepping up to the plate
[1600]
I'm actually very excited about this ministry. It's a change agent; it is not a ministry that is sitting on the status quo. There is a mission, and the mission has those two double sides to it that you talked about. You don't necessarily want to focus on the negative. You want to focus on the positive of what a province looks like when you have people in it from all countries in the world managing to listen and communicate and get along and figure out how to live with each other.
You and I have been to many citizenship courts. You sit there and look, and you're just in awe of the fact that people from all over the world are choosing to come. Although that is exhilarating, we also know it is incredibly challenging. There is a down side and the ugly side that we have to be prepared to work against and to work away from.
New things -- sometimes being new is just getting better at what you're doing. Sometimes it's just getting a clear sense of where you want to be and doing some of that work to get there. But I'm very excited about it, and I'm enjoying myself.
V. Anderson: For my last comment, I wanted to thank you. I was involved in Ecumenical Action, which is now Multifaith Action, as coordinator for 11 years. I am very much aware of the overlap of people who have been involved in multicultural as well as in multifaith. Out of these processes, we have developed a group of professional consultants in multifaith, who have gone on into their own consulting business in multicultural activities. I just wanted to highlight one that's relevant to some of the discussion that was taking place.
The minister may or may not know of Sid Bentley. Sid Bentley was a shop teacher in Surrey. As a shop teacher, he got interested in the different cultural backgrounds from which his students came. He educated himself in religious studies to understand these faith groups. He set up, with the support of the Surrey school board, the program on world religious studies. He came knocking on the door to Victoria, with us pushing behind him. He was able to have it recognized as an alternative program in the junior high school and in the high school, on world religions. It's been a very effective program, and he also has continued to consult since he retired.
So I wanted to thank you that these programs have a variety of things that work. That's why I encourage the minister to try and involve more of the non-government sector, because I think their coming together is where the real future is for all of us. Thank you very much.
Hon. S. Hammell: Just before I close, I want to bring you back to the Inland Refugee Society. We do fund them, and so we have a formal relationship with them. I just want to make sure that you know that.
C. Clark: Luckily, I'm quicker getting up from my seat today than I was the other day. Before we leave Multiculturalism and Immigration, I have just a few very quick questions, and then we can move on to PSERC. Both of them are with respect to the equal opportunity secretariat. The first one is
[1605]
Hon. S. Hammell: I did review all the debate last year. It was very interesting.
For the public service in 1999-2000, six ministries had policy, and six had plans to develop policy. Our target for next year is that 70 percent of all ministries have a policy for representative panels for management positions. The public sector target is under development for next year.
We are also training employees who are equity group members to serve on panels, which is another component.
C. Clark: So when a ministry comes to PSERC or to the equal opportunities secretariat or to the minister and says, "We've got a plan," does the ministry have any basic guidelines about what that plan should look like? And if the ministry does, could she tell us what they are?
Hon. S. Hammell: UMSCEE, or the union-management steering committee on employment equity -- I think you have attended some of their meetings -- are the ones that develop the guidelines. I'll get them for you.
C. Clark: So this ministry's goal is to have, across government, hiring boards that are representative of the number of visible minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled -- as much as is possible in the general population of British Columbia. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Hammell: Our goal is to create the culture where that happens. We're not prescriptive, in the sense that you must do this. What we have done is say that there are six ministries that have that policy and are developing that culture. We have six more that are coming on board this year. Hopefully, by the end of this year, we'll have 12, and by the end of next year, we'll have 70 percent.
C. Clark: My other question with respect to the equal opportunities secretariat is about contracts that have been issued. I know that the secretariat probably relies on contractors quite a bit. I wonder if the minister can give us a list of the contractors and the prices of each of those contracts and the services that were provided.
Hon. S. Hammell: I will give you the list; I have it.
C. Clark: That concludes the opposition's questioning on the Multiculturalism and Immigration part of the minister's estimates. I'd like to thank the staff that participated for an enlightening morning and part of the afternoon.
I'd like to move on to issues in PSERC, if we can. There's a whole number of those that I'd like to canvass today, before
[ Page 17001 ]
we end the day. One of them that certainly is a current issue is pay for senior civil servants. Maybe off the top we can just settle something that's sort of outstanding in the media at the moment. That's whether or how the increase for the senior civil servants at ICBC, for example, which was recently awarded, was approved by PSERC.
[1610]
Hon. S. Hammell: PSEC is the body that makes the policy around that issue, and that is under the Minister of Finance. We are a member of PSEC, but we are not the governing body. Therefore we do not make this decision.
C. Clark: The minister knows that the deputy ministers' salaries, for example, are under review. I had assumed that that meant that senior salaries in the public service more broadly would certainly be frozen or that those agencies of government would be sensitive to this government policy, if indeed this review is something the government is taking seriously. So maybe the place to start with this line of questioning, then, is to ask about the deputy ministers' review that's been announced by the Premier and inquire about PSERC's involvement in that review.
Hon. S. Hammell: We're providing the technical support for that review.
C. Clark: Does the minister have any role in the review at a political level at all, or is it just simply technical information support?
Hon. S. Hammell: Our ministry's contribution is solely technical. As a member of cabinet, I assume that the Premier will bring the review to cabinet.
C. Clark: Not always a fair assumption these days, is it, that the Premier will fly anything by cabinet or caucus before a decision is made, I suppose? But I guess the minister can hope that she would certainly see it at the cabinet table before a decision is made.
The reason I ask this question about PSERC's involvement in the salary review for deputy ministers is because PSERC is also involved, very intimately, in negotiating contracts with the BCGEU -- the union that deputy ministers, I know, are not a part of but sit on top of in the structure of government. I would imagine, given that PSERC has such an important role to play in deciding how much employees throughout the government make when they're negotiating contracts with the BCGEU, that they would certainly have a greater interest than just providing technical details. They would certainly, as managers of the public service, have a great organizational interest in the review. So I'm surprised that this review is so limited. Was there any thought or deliberate decision to exclude PSERC or the minister, as the minister responsible, from any involvement in the review?
Hon. S. Hammell: You may not have realized it, but it is an independent review. So what we are doing is supplying technical information to that independent review.
I'd like to just take a moment and introduce to you the staff around. I have with me Martha Kenney; she's the executive director of policy and innovation at PSERC. We have Roseann Whitton, director of finance. Roseann, where are you? We have Wayne Scale, the ADM of classification and benefits. And we have Ron McEachern, the associate deputy of labour relations; Ron is here. They're here to help me answer.
[1615]
C. Clark: Well, if the ministry isn't at all involved in the review process itself, how much involvement did the ministry have in formulating the decision to have a review?
Hon. S. Hammell: The decision to have a review was the decision of the Premier.
C. Clark: I take it the ministry had no involvement in that at all. I wonder if the ministry had any involvement or was relied upon for any information in the initial decision to increase deputy ministers' salaries, which is now being reviewed.
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we did. A report was authorized and submitted, and a subcommittee of the Public Sector Employers Council approved the report.
C. Clark: How long was this decision to raise deputy ministers' salaries, then, in the works? If PSERC was preparing a report, and it went through the entire process and PSEC saw it, and of course, government doesn't work
Hon. S. Hammell: Excuse me; I'm going to struggle with some of this, because most of it occurred prior to my coming to the ministry. We have worked on it for about four to six months, and it was submitted to the subcommittee on executive compensation in December.
C. Clark: So what guidelines did PSERC use in recommending that the deputy ministers' salaries be increased, particularly given that PSERC would have been aware that it was supposed to be applying a zero-zero-and-2 policy with respect to its negotiations with employees that are in the BCGEU?
Hon. S. Hammell: The report considered other deputy ministers across Canada, officers of the Legislature and judiciary in British Columbia and managers and unionized employees in the B.C. public service.
[1620]
C. Clark: Well, if it considered unionized members in the public service of British Columbia, and public servants in British Columbia are subject -- or were supposed to be subject -- to a zero-zero-and-2 guideline with respect to their remuneration, I am having difficulty figuring out how the zero-zero-and-2 pay that was being negotiated by the government with government employees would somehow justify the increases that deputy ministers got. I wonder if the minister can explain that.
Hon. S. Hammell: Deputy ministers' salaries, you may not be aware, had been frozen at that time since 1992, with the exception of a 1 percent general increase in November 1997. So you have to take a longer period of time than you're looking at.
[ Page 17002 ]
C. Clark: I do want to be clear. I am not one of these people who says that people who do very challenging jobs at a senior level shouldn't be paid well. I think that they should be paid well. I'm just curious about
I wonder if the minister can confirm my understanding of what she just said, which is that because deputy ministers' salaries were frozen for so long, this increase was intended to be a catch-up for all those years that it had been frozen. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Hammell: No. What I'm saying to you is that you are comparing their increase to zero-zero-and-2, and I'm suggesting that you might want to look at a longer period of time -- but that's up to you.
C. Clark: It was the minister who suggested that the negotiations with the union were one of the criteria that they used to justify the increases for deputy ministers. She said that they looked at the wages that unionized BCGEU members were making in the government and that that was one of the criteria, along with judges and a couple of other professions that she named. So my question is: how do you draw that kind of logic, when the government was pursuing, supposedly, a zero-zero-and-2 negotiating guideline, and it has been since June of 1997, I think, when they announced it?
Where do these numbers come from? Is the minister then saying
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, we have a couple of opportunities here in debate under these estimates. Mentioning members by name is not permitted. The other requirement, really, is that the debate happen through the Chair.
Hon. S. Hammell: We're going to be here a long, long time if we don't listen very carefully to each other. I will not have words put in my mouth. I did not mention zero-zero-and-2. Let me repeat what I said: I said that the review looked at other deputy ministers across Canada, officers of the Legislature and judiciary in British Columbia, and managers and unionized employees in the B.C. public service. That's what I said.
C. Clark: Yes, and it is the last couple of words that I am referring to. Maybe the review said: "Oh, well, we considered the amount that unionized BCGEU members in the public service are earning, and we decided we won't use that as a criterion." But the minister has indicated -- and maybe I've misunderstood her -- that the commission, in its report, did look at the amount that unionized BCGEU employees were making. And they used that as one of the criteria on which they based their recommendation that deputy ministers should get the big increases that were granted to them by the Premier of the day.
I don't know why the minister thinks I'm misrepresenting her words. I may not be using the exact same words, but perhaps she can explain to me how my understanding is different from what she said. Because I don't understand the logic that she's trying to draw this afternoon.
[1625]
Hon. S. Hammell: If I understand the question, you asked me what the criteria were for the review. So I have given you the criteria. And it was that the review looked at other deputy ministers across Canada and what their salaries are, officers of the Legislature and the judiciary in B.C., and management and unionized employees in the B.C. public service. That was part of the information that the committee looked at as they made a determination.
C. Clark: All right. Then I'll put this another way. What did the review find, when they looked at unionized employees in the B.C. public service, that they could use to justify the increase that was granted to deputy ministers?
Hon. S. Hammell: What they did in terms of looking at the unionized employees in B.C. was that they looked at the increments. When you get hired, you move incrementally. The increments are built on a chronological step platform. So they looked at that, and that had a weight. I think that is actually worth about 7 percent; the increment is 6.97 percent. But the salaries were compared to other positions with similar responsibilities in the British Columbia public sector. The fact that their salaries had been frozen since 1992, except for the 1 percent increase in 1997, was considered. So again, I've mentioned the grids, and they looked at the officers of the Legislature and senior labour board positions which have similar responsibilities. Generally, they just did a comparison and looked at a number of factors and made recommendations.
C. Clark: What period of time did the commission look at for BCGEU public sector salaries, when it was determining the amount of compensation or when it was building the criteria that it was going to use to make its recommendations? Was it looking at sort of a ten-year time frame for total increases for that particular group, or was it a five-year or a two-year
Hon. S. Hammell: They looked at the period of time from '92 to '99.
C. Clark: And what did they find the total increases were for that period?
[1630]
Hon. S. Hammell: The total since 1992 for the BCGEU is 13.7 percent in general increases, plus pay equity at 2 percent and general classification increases of approximately 4 percent for a total of an estimated 20 percent.
C. Clark: Well, I'm starting to conclude that this wasn't the most significant criterion on which the commission based its recommendations to increase deputy minister's salaries, because some of them went up quite a bit more than 20
[ Page 17003 ]
percent, for sure. And if that's over a ten-year period -- and the minister and I will engage in a discussion about the accuracy of those numbers a little bit later this afternoon, I'm sure -- that is certainly a much lower number than the deputy ministers received in their increases that the government provided. Deputy ministers are certainly doing a lot better as a result of this increase, based on what the minister has said, than your average, typical public servant in the BCGEU.
I'm interested in the fact that this ministry, on the one hand, would be pursuing -- supposedly -- a zero-zero-and-2 policy with respect to its employees and then ultimately granting a much, much bigger increase to the people at the senior levels. The criterion that the minister has suggested -- that they've compared the two over a longer period of time, over a ten-year period, and that somehow that justifies it -- doesn't measure up, when in fact it turns out that that increase was only 20 percent and deputy ministers, in many cases, got much higher increases than that.
Hon. S. Hammell: It's always difficult to hear when there's a lot of noise. Let's go over it. The average increase for the BCGEU over that period of time was around 20 percent, and the average increase of the deputies was 9.5 percent.
C. Clark: Some of them got a lot more than that. Some of them got a whole lot more than that. My complaint with this government and the way the government approaches compensation is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of logic to the way the government goes about giving people raises. I don't think it creates a very stable public service when you do that. If people can't look in and say: "This is a transparent, open process; I understand how the system works, and my expectations will be borne out in reality and it's all predictable and understandable
One of the things that a lot of people talk about is not just that the amount that deputy ministers are making but that the number of people that are being paid as deputy ministers now has increased dramatically. I wonder if the minister can give us an estimate on that.
[1635]
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm really pleased you asked this question, because the information that you got prior was incorrect. It originated from us, so we know it's incorrect.
There are 39 deputy ministers in government. Between 1997 and 2000, 11.5 were hired and six left, for a net increase of 5.5. The number of appointments is tied primarily to the number of ministers. It fluctuates, depending on the size of cabinet, and changes also occur due to restructuring within ministries.
The figures previously released were misleading. There are a number of people with status equivalent to deputy ministers included in the 2000 figures that were not included in the 1997 figures. That is our mistake. I'm glad you've asked it, so we can correct it.
C. Clark: I want to be clear about this, because my question wasn't about the number of deputy ministers; it's the number of people who are being paid at a deputy minister level. The information the ministry gave us before indicated that there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of an 80 percent increase in the number of people who are being paid as deputy ministers -- not necessarily have the title, but are being paid at that level. I've asked the minister to clarify that a little bit further, because it certainly bears correction if the ministry's information was wrong.
Hon. S. Hammell: Do you have the table with you?
C. Clark: No.
Hon. S. Hammell: Okay. The figure that was 24 on your table under June '97 should've been 33. They did not add in the equivalence in '97, and so the figure in 2000 is 39. That's our mistake.
C. Clark: Thanks. I'm glad the minister corrected that. So if there are 39 people being paid at deputy minister salary, how many of them are actually working as deputy ministers?
Hon. S. Hammell: There are actually
I will get that information for you. It's a matter of going through a list and doing a checkoff, but I will get it for you.
[1640]
C. Clark: There is one in particular that has come to my attention, and that's the former interim chief of staff to the Premier. I understand he has now gone back down and is working as a special adviser to another minister. But I wonder if the minister can confirm that although this individual is no longer at a deputy minister's level, no longer the interim chief of staff for the Premier, he continues to make the same kind of money that he did when he was in that office -- although he now is only a special adviser in a minister's office.
Hon. S. Hammell: The member is referring to a former chief of staff who is now a special assistant to the deputy in social services, and that person did get a reduction in salary.
C. Clark: The issue of deputy ministers and order-in-council appointments and all those kinds of issues of course, as the minister knows, have a significant impact on morale in the public service.
One of the things that we talked about in our opening comments was the issue of how public servants are hired. I am curious
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to go back to you for clarification, but I'm going to answer one question first -- the latter. You asked about direct appointments, and I'll give you
[ Page 17004 ]
those numbers. In 1995-96 there were two; in '96-97 there was one; in '97-98 there were two; in '98-99 there was one; and in '99-2000 there were two. Some of these -- and I was asking my deputy about it this morning -- come out of a protocol with the judiciary. For example, they will hire their own people or decide who they were going to
By comparison -- and I'll give you that -- last year there were 2,013 competitions. Those are the ones that go in front of a hiring panel. There were 116 appeals filed on that, and then that works through the appeals commissioner. Twenty went to hearing, and of those, 12 were denied and eight were granted.
I don't know whether I've missed the question around OICs or not.
Interjection.
Hon. S. Hammell: Ask me again so I understand.
The Chair: It really helps debate if it's carried out through the Chair, hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
[1645]
C. Clark: My question was: how many people have been hired by this government in the last year by order-in-council?
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to give you the total number. They weren't necessarily hired this year. The total number of OICs that are operating in the system right now, including deputies, assistant deputies and any other employment person who has an OIC, is 367.
C. Clark: How many of those OIC appointments would be for positions that are under the assistant deputy minister level?
Hon. S. Hammell: I think the answer that would fit the question is none. But let me go back and
C. Clark: That leaves a lot of people in ministers' offices. If those numbers are correct, there are something in the neighbourhood of, we're guessing, 20, maybe 35, maybe even more than that -- 40 -- ADMs and DMs and 71 people who are hired in the civil service -- you know, what we would typically call the civil service. Are the rest of them all in ministers' offices? I wonder if the minister could just confirm that for me.
Hon. S. Hammell: We will do some clarifying. We need to think it through -- right? Your executive assistant in your constituency is an OIC appointment. Your ministerial assistant and all your clerks are OIC appointments within the ministry. So that's where you get your numbers. But we will actually go through this and identify exactly which ones are in ministers' offices.
C. Clark: And while we're at it, I wonder if the minister can tell us what the ministry's tracking of the pay increases for OIC appointments bears out?
Hon. S. Hammell: Their salary increases have reflected the bargaining unit salary increases, except of course for your deputy ministers.
C. Clark: Since when? Since when have they reflected the
[1650]
Hon. S. Hammell: There are two categories. One is the excluded staff that mirror the bargaining unit occupations, such as your clerks. They're excluded, and their increases also are those of the bargaining unit. They reflect the bargaining, by policy.
The managers, which are your ministerial assistants, mirror the increases to the management. They have mirrored the increases to the bargaining unit. So in essence, unless you're looking at deputies, which were frozen from 1992, this whole group, as best we know here
C. Clark: I appreciate that the minister doesn't manage them, but she does pay them. This is where all the paycheques come from. I mean, paycheques are generated in government centrally, I understand, and PSERC would, presumably, have information about how much people are being paid that work directly for government. I've worked directly for government, and I remember exactly what the minister is talking about: excluded staff had their pay increases mirror the increases that were awarded through the BCGEU contract, even though they're not members.
But the key thing there is not just the increases that you get; it's the total cost of OICs to government -- right? -- because it depends on what you get hired in at that makes the difference. If government, over a period of years, starts hiring in OICs at higher and higher and higher rates, then you end up with a total much greater cost to government over a ten-year period, even though once someone gets hired, they might increase at a rate that's equivalent to the public service. So you end up with dramatically different costs, one cost outpacing the other quite a bit.
If you go back and look at Public Accounts -- and I could do this; in fact I have done it -- to find out how much the cost of orders-in-council has increased versus the cost of public servants in general
Hon. S. Hammell: It's a question that I can't respond to, except in rather general terms. People have increments and reclassifications in any system, and people are brought in at different levels in systems, depending on their qualifications. I expect there have been incremental adjustments because
[ Page 17005 ]
experience, on top of added qualifications or credentials. So you're quite correct
[1655]
C. Clark: My concern here is that people who work in the public service and who go through the competitions and get hired based on their merit get a certain kind of increase or incur a certain kind of cost to government over the years. People who are appointed outside that system -- some of whom are qualified, I'm sure -- enjoy a different kind of treatment from government.
One of the things I'm trying to get at
Those are my questions for the minister. Of those different factors, to which one would she attribute this dramatic growth in the cost to government of orders-in-council?
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm sure it's a combination of both. I don't have an analysis for you, but I would assume that some of it is an increase in numbers, probably some of it is an increase in salary, and some of it is the moving up in terms of increments.
Let me give you some numbers that you've asked for. There are 107 clerical staff and 68 MAs, SAs, and EAs that are OIC appointments.
C. Clark: Whatever it's attributable to, it's a dramatic increase in the cost to government, and it's something that I think most public servants who were hired by another process would be quite concerned about. Quite clearly they're working in an environment where they're not doing as well as another group of people, potentially, that are getting hired without going through those merit hiring practices. I don't know what it's attributable to, but I think there's a reason for concern here. People who are hired without going through the process -- people who are hired directly by order-in-council -- are increasing in their cost to government at a rate of 42 percent.
I know these numbers aren't directly comparable, because the minister talked about a 20 percent increase for unionized BCGEU members in the direct public service. That isn't talking about the total cost to government, and I do want to talk about that later. I suspect that the total to government of those unionized members in the BCGEU who have gone through the merit hiring process isn't anywhere near as high as 42 percent. If it is, there's a whole different question we need to debate, because that's pretty dramatic too. But if there's a gap there, I wonder if the minister's concerned about it or if she views it as the normal practice of the way government should work.
[1700]
Hon. S. Hammell: As I said before, some of it is attributable to the numbers, I'm sure, some of it to incremental growth -- we have had people who have been with us for a fair amount of time in terms of staff -- and some of it would be attributed to salary increases that reflected the BCGEU bargaining unit.
If I remember reading the Hansard, and if I'm very clear about comments from the member last year, you acknowledged that there is a political process and that there are people who are political staff. I think it's also erroneous to assume that there is not a process through which many of the people, regardless of whether they are in the ministers' offices
Again I can say to you that I can't give you an exact analysis of where the number you are quoting comes from, but I do believe it's probably a combination of factors that takes us to that point. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that OIC appointments are not the same as appointments to the public service. You've acknowledged that, and I think previous debates have acknowledged that. The merit principle is very clearly attached to the people who are moving into the public service in a permanent way, which you and I have agreed on.
Looks like we'll adjourn for a minute.
The Chair: We have a division in the other chamber. We will recess this committee to accommodate the division, and we will reconvene at the conclusion of the division vote.
The committee recessed from 5:01 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
G. Plant: I want to pursue, relatively briefly, the status of the dispute, or at least ongoing discussions, around the Crown Counsel Association matter. I really want to pursue it in as brief and concise a way as possible. My questions, I suppose, could be put pretty simply. Is there a deal? Has the government accepted the Munroe recommendations? If not, what's the government's position? If there is some information in answer to those questions, that would be very helpful.
Hon. S. Hammell: To be brief, no decision has been made.
G. Plant: Can the minister assist me in indicating what her understanding is of the timetable within which the government does have to take a position one way or the other on the recommendations?
Hon. S. Hammell: We took receipt of the report on the 23rd, and it's 21 working days forward from that point.
[1715]
G. Plant: Am I right that the basic structure is that if the government accepts it, that's the end of the matter, but if the government chooses not to accept it, then the government or the minister has to take some positive action, either by tabling some response in the House or some other process like that?
[ Page 17006 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: If the recommendations are accepted by government, the new agreement between the association and the government will be in effect until March 2003. If the recommendations are not accepted, the existing agreement will be in effect until March 2002. Either way, an agreement will be reached. However, if we do not accept the report, we have to give a reasoned response and lay the report in the Legislature.
G. Plant: That's very helpful.
Could I ask the minister this question? One of the challenges that I think faces both sides in this dispute is: if there is to be a change in the basic levels of compensation for Crown counsel, how is that to be achieved? Is it to be an across-the-board raise? Is it to be by reclassification? There are a number of ways that the government can, I guess, slice the loaf of bread or something like that. Some ways of solving the problem will probably lend themselves fairly readily to a calculation about what the additional cost is to government; others may be a little bit harder.
The government has recently made public the additional costs of certain wage settlements -- the accords and so on. Could I get the minister's assurance that, at such time as there is an agreement one way or the other, and in keeping with the procedure that she's outlined, the government will make public a costing of what the additional amounts are that it's committed to as a result of this process?
Hon. S. Hammell: First, the response to the report lies with the Attorney General. But based on previous practice, I assume the costs will be made public.
C. Clark: Well, just to be absolutely correct about this, the previous practice hasn't really been to make the costs entirely public. What the previous practice has been is to make them public up until now, and no future costs of any of these agreements have ever been disclosed. What I'd do is urge this ministry to do its bit to provide the Attorney General with all the information about future costs of the agreement, because what we've seen so far in the disclosure of those costs has only been up until this year. That doesn't assist at all in terms of policy-making, when you can't look further down the line. You can't look, for example, at what the future costs of the agreement negotiated by CCEA will be, and we anticipate that that is going to be an enormous cost to government.
While we're on that topic, I guess the minister can't give me a commitment that the Attorney General will disclose the future costs of the agreement, but can she give me a commitment that she will advise the Attorney General's office of the future costs of this agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: What I will make a commitment to do is support the past practice.
[1720]
C. Clark: So the ministry will not be trying to determine how much this agreement will cost into the future then?
Hon. S. Hammell: I don't think that's what I said. I assume that past practice will prevail and that the costs, as reflected by past practice, will be made public.
C. Clark: Well, my question is a different question. It speaks to a broader point, which is: does the government bother to determine future costs of agreements? Does the government not disclose this because they just don't feel like it? Or do they not disclose these future costs because they don't actually know what the future costs are?
Hon. S. Hammell: This is a negotiated settlement that we have in front of us, and we will either accept it or reject it. I assume that we will make the costs of that settlement available.
The committee recessed from 5:23 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
C. Clark: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:37 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada