Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 13 -- Thursday, August 9, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act (Bill 15). Hon. G. Bruce
	Committee stage	365
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan

School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8). Hon. C. Clark
	Third reading	376

	Proceedings in Section A

School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8). Hon. C. Clark
	Committee stage	377
	B. Locke

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Children and Family Development estimates. Hon. G. Hogg
	Vote 19: Ministry operations	377
	Hon. G. Hogg
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. L. Reid
	I. Chong
	R. Lee
	E. Brenzinger
	Ministry of Advanced Education estimates. Hon. S. Bond
	Vote 10: ministry operations	386
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Bill 8, committee stage, School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001. That will be followed by Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be beginning with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, followed by the Ministry of Advanced Education. In Committee B, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 15.

Hon. G. Bruce: With me are Bev Sterling Pither and Rick Connolly. They're both from PSEC. Joining me momentarily will be the Deputy Minister of Labour, Lee Doney.

J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering whether there will be anyone from the Ministry of Health Services or the Ministry of Health Planning joining us.

Hon. G. Bruce: That hadn't been the intention, but we can certainly see as we go.

J. MacPhail: On definitions, under the paramedical professional and also the nurses…. I'll ask two questions. They are both under section 1.

The nurses bargaining association. Can the minister please list the unions involved — unions who represent, first of all, the nurses bargaining association and then the paramedical professionals?

Hon. G. Bruce: The members of the paramedical bargaining association, as the member would know, are the BCGEU; the BCNU, the B.C. Nurses Union; CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the Health Sciences Association; Professional Employees Association; and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

J. MacPhail: We had a bit of a discussion around this under the last…. I think it was Bill 2 — I'm sorry if I misname it — the cooling-off-period legislation. I'll look that up in a moment.

The definition of "nurse" as a unionized employee. Can you tell me what percentage of the nursing workforce located in the institutions covered by the current round of collective bargaining between the nurses bargaining association and the HABC is unionized and covered by this bill?

Hon. G. Bruce: Could you just be a little clearer on what you're looking for there?

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out the impact on the workforce of these terms and conditions of employment. The question is: of the entire nursing workforce in the institutions covered by this collective bargaining situation, what percentage of the entire nursing workforce is encompassed by the definition of nurse here, which is a unionized nurse?

Hon. G. Bruce: I hope I'm answering your question correctly. As we see this, this is covering the 28,000 nurses in our institutions. Now, there are other collective agreements, and this doesn't refer to those.

J. MacPhail: That's half the answer. The other half is: how many nurses are there in the workforce that are not unionized but who are employed in the workforce — management, charge nurses…? I don't know how far down the bargaining unit goes — or how far up, I should say.

Hon. G. Bruce: I still need a little bit more clarification on that. Are we talking about all the nurses in British Columbia who are unionized and what this applies to as this collective agreement and the percentage of these nurses relative to the entire complement of unionized nurses in the province? No? Sorry, could you just…?

J. MacPhail: This contract is between the HABC and the nurses bargaining association. There's a range of institutions involved. The HABC is representing a certain number of employers. Within that range of employers — not beyond, not other institutions that are not covered by this contract — there is a full complement of a nursing workforce. In that complement of the full nursing workforce, what percentage is unionized and what percentage is not unionized, not covered by this contract?

Hon. G. Bruce: I believe I understand that question. We're talking about the management exclusion, and I don't have that right here. We'll get that for you.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, just for some notice, I am going to be spending some time on this section. This is the section that imposes the collective agreement, the contract, on the bargaining unit. This is the section that chooses the employer proposal and imposes that, forces that on the nurses. This section is just the nurses, so we will be talking about just the nurses in this particular section.

As I understand it, section 2(1)(a) takes the collective agreement that expired on March 31, 2001, and says that is in place, save and except how it's modified by 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(c). So I'll be dealing, first of all, with how the government chose to modify the collective agreement through 2(1)(b).

As I understand it, there are provisions that have been signed off. Perhaps I shouldn't say that. I actually don't understand that; I don't know that. What process has the employer and the union and/or the government gone through to determine the wages and working conditions encapsulated under 2(1)(b)?

Hon. G. Bruce: Through the process of the negotiations that had started way back in January and through, then also with the mediator — the IIC in this instance here — there were a number of issues that the parties did agree upon, and that is what this embodies in this particular section.

J. MacPhail: I am asking this question because later on I see where there's a dispute resolution process that may be put in place if there's disagreement about 2(1)(b). Given the nature of the tension between the parties as we speak, I think this clause may become key to either the stability or the instability of the health care system in the coming days and weeks, so I want to spend some time on 2(1)(b).

Can the minister tell the House whether there are signed documents of agreement? He also referred to…. Well, maybe I should do this question by question until we see how it goes.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's an important subject — this section particularly, as you mentioned. This is standard language, but it's there from the standpoint that this has gone on, there's a great deal of frustration, and we want a process where if there are differing opinions of interpretation and so on — it has a process of being properly resolved. In the greater instance most of these are signed-off agreements.

J. MacPhail: The minister mentioned the mediator. In this particular clause we're dealing with the nurses bargaining association and the HEABC. For the record, is it an industrial inquiry commissioner, and is that Mr. Vince Ready?

J. MacPhail: The minister made reference to recommendations made by the industrial inquiry commissioner. Are there recommendations made by the industrial inquiry commissioner that would affect clause 2(1)(b)? If so, are those recommendations in writing?

Hon. G. Bruce: Those recommendations were not made, just to be correct on this, — by the IIC, by Mr. Ready. They were identified through his process, and they're in his report. I'm just standing to be corrected on that. I'll just double-check on that.

In Mr. Ready's report he makes mention that over 80 percent of the issues that were on the table had been resolved. He does list those items that were still in dispute.

J. MacPhail: The minister makes reference to a report by the IIC. I missed receiving a copy of the Ready report. I'm wondering whether we could have a copy and take a brief recess or just have the ability to have my colleague look at it while we're here in the chamber.

Hon. G. Bruce: There's a little bit of a procedural problem here. The report was never made public. It wasn't presented to the parties. It was a report that we were looking for. It hasn't been put in the public domain. We're just trying to figure out how we can do that in the time line here. There's nothing in it that's untoward. It's very straightforward.

J. MacPhail: Well, I assume that the government relied on the industrial inquiry commissioner or at least considered the advice of the industrial inquiry commissioner as they prepared to force this agreement through. I'm curious to know why (1) the report, if available, is not public and (2) why the parties have not been given the information in the Ready report.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important to note that the report doesn't make any recommendations. What I'd asked for was a current standing of the dispute, so that's how the report was built. Of course, in the last moments there was a final approach made by the nurses, and I took that into account with the report I had that would have been written by Vince Ready.

J. MacPhail: Given the tension of the situation that we face currently — and I don't think anyone takes any comfort from any point of view about the tension that we face in British Columbia involving this bargaining and this legislation — I think it's incumbent upon every single member in this chamber, including my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me, to do everything possible to lower the level of tension. As I see it, part of the tension that is arising is the lack of understanding about how the government reached its

decision to legislate the employer's offer. We'll get into this later on, but it's never been done before — to legislate one side.

I am hoping to use this time, through discussion with the minister, to shed some light on how the government reached its decision to legislate the employer offer. It would seem to me that the advice in whatever circumstance, whether it be recommendations or a listing of concerns or an analysis of the two sides, would help the parties. Well, it would certainly help those who are very, very upset through perhaps a lack of understanding of the government's actions.

I think it's key that at a minimum, those who are advising nurses — that would be shop stewards or the nurses bargaining association — would have the benefit of the light shed upon the situation by Mr. Ready. So I wonder whether we should just pause, and the minister can seek advice about how he can release the Ready comments.

Hon. G. Bruce: You're really asking how I came to a conclusion of recommending to cabinet and to government that we proceed with this, and then we can deal with that without the Ready report, if that's really the intent.

J. MacPhail: Well, what I'll probably have to do is go through the various employer proposals that become part of the agreement in comparison to the nurses' proposals that were rejected out of hand by the government and then ask, I guess, clause by clause about what Mr. Ready said about that and how the government reached its conclusions. I know full well that there are all sorts of situations of cabinet confidentiality. I know that the minister met with the nurses bargaining association, made certain commitments to them. I think, actually, the minister said publicly yesterday within the House and outside the House that the government took those to cabinet. So given that it's now on the public record that the minister did that, perhaps we'll have to go through the outstanding proposals proposal by proposal, and I'm willing to proceed that way. We're now under 2(1)(c). We'll be dealing with that. So, Mr. Chair, I'll proceed on that basis?

The Chair: One moment, please. We're just having some concern about whether this is staying within the mandate of this particular section.

Hon. G. Bruce: The difficulty we have is that the Ready report was presented to us, and it was a report, not recommendations, as to the state of the negotiations. After we received that report, the Nurses Union proposed another move on their part, and the report in itself does not deal with that. The written report does not deal with that, because obviously I had that in my hands at that point. The concern we have is that to put that out now would be reflective of the time prior to what I was actually dealing with. I don't have a particular problem of sharing it with you; we're just trying to figure out how to do that in this instance. That's the reasoning. I had the report, the nurses offered another position, so virtually that report had changed. The basis of it was still correct. The differences, although closer, were still very, very large.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I take it that the government had the benefit of recommendations from Mr. Ready. The nurses subsequently reduced their bargaining proposals in terms of monetary cost to the government. Did the government then choose to not have Mr. Ready continue with his industrial inquiry commission?

There was the proposal of July 26 to Mr. Ready, and then there was the subsequent proposal to the employers association of August 3, their last proposal. Did the government ask Mr. Ready to go in and re-engage and then take that advice from Mr. Ready? Or did they just rely on Mr. Ready's advice prior to the Nurses Union moving twice?

Hon. G. Bruce: We were looking to get a negotiated settlement, and Mr. Ready was involved right to the end. I want to be clear that the report he submitted was not one of recommendations. It was on the state of where the negotiations were at. Yes, I had Mr. Ready very involved in the last offer that had been presented by the nurses. I was hopeful that there might be something there so that there was some way of continuing to close the gap. When we researched that and got the numbers and took a really good look at it again, as I mentioned, they were still millions of dollars apart.

J. MacPhail: The proposal that the nurses submitted…. I gather that the nurses bargaining association submitted it both to the HEABC and then met with the minister on August 6 to review the proposal. Was Mr. Ready present at the meeting between the nurses bargaining association and the minister?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Ready wasn't present physically in the room. It was a conference call, but he was there for the discussion.

On the other part of your question on the timing, the proposal by the BCNU did not go to HEABC. It went to HEABC afterwards, and I think they received it Tuesday morning.

J. MacPhail: Did Mr. Ready, to the best of your knowledge, in his capacity as industrial inquiry commissioner meet with the employer subsequent to the minister's meeting with the nurses bargaining association on August 6?

J. MacPhail: What was in the minister's mind in terms of the role that the industrial inquiry commissioner was to play, up to…? Sorry, I don't want to confuse dates. This legislation was introduced on August 7 at 6 p.m., I think. I don't need to know what's in the minister's mind. Let me just ask him directly what he did. I assume they're related. The minister is directly responsible for directing the industrial inquiry commissioner; that's his jurisdiction. What role did the Minister of Labour ask the industrial inquiry commissioner to play in the nurses bargaining association dispute with HEABC up to and including the tabling of the legislation at 6 o'clock?

Hon. G. Bruce: The industrial inquiry commissioner's role was to assist the parties in trying to come to a negotiated settlement, as I know the member would be aware, and he worked on that and did that. We got to the point where I needed to have a report as to where he saw the situation, how it lay, and that's the Ready report that came to me.

Following that, the nurses brought forward another offer, and with that, I was in consultation with the industrial inquiry commissioner. He was in consultation with the BCNU right up to the day of our meeting and was part of that discussion.

The question was, as you mentioned, directed to me as the Minister of Labour. My wish was to try and find a negotiated settlement, try and find some way that we could put this together. At the end of the day, I'm charged with coming through with the report to government. The cooling-off period was coming to a conclusion, and my recommendation was that I didn't believe that we could get a negotiated settlement. The parties were clearly too far apart.

J. Kwan: Did the minister at any point ask Mr. Ready for recommendations in terms of resolving the dispute?

Hon. G. Bruce: I wanted to get the status, which I did. I met with the parties that were in this dispute. I heard specifically from them. Mr. Ready had been involved for quite some time on this now and had been in contact with me as the discussions ensued. It became very clear to me that, ultimately, I was the one that was responsible, and it was very clear to me that there wasn't a possibility of negotiated settlement here.

J. Kwan: Is it the minister's opinion, then, that Mr. Ready would not be of any assistance in bringing the two sides together? Is it the minister's opinion that Mr. Ready would have no capacity, as a third party, in bringing the two sides together for a resolution?

J. Kwan: The information that the minister received from Mr. Ready, as I understand, is an analysis of the situation. The analysis of the situation presumably was derived with Mr. Ready being involved on both sides. Given the tension of the dispute, would it not be better to have a third party engage in the process of a resolution, as opposed to a forced settlement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Ready had been involved for quite some time. At the end of the day, somebody has to make a decision. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour, whoever that may be. So that decision was made.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why we're pursuing this line of questioning is because of the unusual nature of the government's choice to take a side on a package of proposals. In fact, there's just been a recent report out, and I'd be happy to table it.

There's a report out doing a survey of the imposition of settlements. It's an ILO, International Labour Organization, survey. It's as recent as April 2001. It's a survey of back-to-work legislation, Canadian style. It's dated March-April 2001. We'd be happy to leave this with the employer. I know that this is a public document. It's actually an academic journal document: Lancaster's Collective Agreement Reporter. Those of us that used to be in the biz were very familiar with Lancaster's Reporter.

Anyway, it talks about back-to-work legislation and an overview of it. There are a couple of features, one that's common: (1) determinate the ongoing strike; (2) continue collective agreement terms — usually goes from the old agreement until a new agreement is reached; and (3) provide for some sort of alternative dispute resolution process. In this case it says usually arbitration. So that's why we're exploring the issue of the industrial inquiry commissioner and the role that he plays. In this case it was a he. Finally, in a drastic move that defies International Labour Organization conventions, some governments have unilaterally imposed wages and working conditions without allowing any access to arbitration.

Then it does go on to explain how that is the rare exception, though. I'd be happy to table this document for the Minister of Labour. It's just the unusual nature of forcing the employer proposal on the nurses bargaining association. We're trying to get into the mind of the government as to why, given the review of how unusual this is and how tensions seem to be arising because of that, they chose to set aside the role of the industrial inquiry commissioner. That's just to give background, perhaps shed some light to the public and to the nurses who are on strike as we speak.

Let me just carry on in that vein, if I may. The industrial inquiry commissioner in his report…. I guess the last report would have been…. Was it July 11? There must be a date that the industrial inquiry commissioner reported to the Minister of Labour.

J. MacPhail: Sorry; July 30. Thank you, minister. In that report, did the industrial inquiry commissioner give any comfort to the Minister of Labour about the nature of costing the two proposals?

Hon. G. Bruce: To paraphrase his report, he said that the parties were a huge chasm apart in regard to the offers that they were discussing on the table, that there were varying costing methodologies, systems, and that even though you could take one, two or three of them, they were still miles apart.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that, and I expect that the parties fully understand that they were tens of millions of dollars apart. However, one also has to take that in the context of the overall nature of the wage bill for the nurses bargaining association, in the context of a more than $9 billion health care system. This is key. It is important for us to spend some time on this, because this has become an area of concern for the nurses.

Believe you me, I get so much of my information these days from radio and print and TV, so I have to rely…. But they are voice clips, I promise you. I'm not reading into any reporter who's paraphrasing comments.

I have also heard from the employer representative his acknowledgement of the difference in costing, but I thought I also heard the employer say that they are admitting to some confusion around the costing of the proposal. This is the HEABC. I also think it's important for the public to understand the nature of the dispute as well, given that the public is directly affected by the government's decision to impose the employer proposal.

Even given the various methodologies — whether it be methodology 1, 2 or 3, (a), (b), whatever — does the minister have available for the chamber, the Legislature, or even the parties themselves the determination of costing? And if he has, has he made that available to the two bargaining agents?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we should be clear about this. It's not tens of millions of dollars; it's hundreds of millions of dollars that we're apart. So that the general public can understand, this is a three-year contract. The way I approached it and looked at it was from the standpoint of the taxpayers, because I believe that's my responsibility. What would this contract cost in totality over that three years? I then took the difference between what the union was proposing and where the employer was at. My determination was that that was some $224 million in difference over the costing, over the life of the three-year contract. That $224 million is a very large amount of money on what was already a very large and significant offer.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate that that is the minister's current view, and I guess that current view hasn't changed over the last few days. I also understand that it's on the public record that the nurses bargaining association met with the minister on August 6, Monday, and said they don't agree with the employer's costing.

Ours is not the place here to bargain the collective agreement. I fully understand that one proposal is being forced on them. The employer has decided to force the employer's proposal on the nurses. However, it is important that we take this opportunity to explain why.

I understand the nurses are saying on the public record that they had met with the Minister of Labour and had put forward a proposal that had a costing where, in their view, their proposal was reduced by $137 million. Given that move, they then didn't agree with the employer's costing of what was going to be the impact on the taxpayer — and on the patient, of course, which I know we're all very concerned about.

It's also my understanding that there was going to be some work done on that. That was the role the minister was going to play in terms of trying to bring the parties together. In fact, I understand that's what the minister said to the nurses bargaining association.

Is it the minister's position now that he lived up to the commitment he made to the nurses bargaining association on August 6, that he took their submission or their point of view that the employer's costing was wrong — or inflated, I guess; I shouldn't say wrong, but inflated — that the minister reached a decision that the nurses bargaining association was indeed wrong and that the employer was right on the costing?

Hon. G. Bruce: What I did was I took the nurses' proposal and went through it so I could understand how they had come to their figures. What they did in making their presentation was.... Some of the figures, to get to a total, were done incrementally. In other words, this meant one would reflect on it as simply one year of the three-year agreement. Then they proposed that the designated-days-off section that was going to be removed, which they had agreed to, would equate to $7.5 million a year, and they multiplied that by three, which gave a reduction of $22.5 million.

When you took that $22.5 million, which is what you would call cumulative, off the total they had put together, which was incremental, it left a cost — somewhat convoluted, really — so that even I would say: "Okay, that's not exactly the way it is, but that figure is $70 million." If you then multiplied that over three years, it's still $210 million, so we were still millions and millions of dollars — multimillions — apart. This was on the numbers that I had presented to me, taking time to try and go through it.

It gets very confusing, because there is incremental and there's cumulative. If you deal with it from the standpoint of what the taxpayer has to pay — and that's really my responsibility — it would have been $210 million even by their best numbers.

J. MacPhail: So I'm to understand that on the difference between the employer proposal that the government is legislating and the nurses' last offer, the minister is suggesting that the difference is $70 million per year of the contract, for a total of $210 million over three years. That's based on a budget, then, which would be about $28 billion.

Wait — 9.5 times three. Yeah, about $28 billion, so it's $70 million difference per year. If you say it's a three-year collective agreement, that's a difference of $210 million, cumulative, over three years on a $28 billion health care budget. Is that it? If that is the case, did the minister notify the nurses of his conclusions reached in that matter, as promised?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important that we're really clear on the impact to the taxpayer in this instance. What was already on the table over and above what the base wage rate is that currently came out of the Health budget to pay wages and salaries…. What was in the deal on the table was an offer of $634 million. Again, I want to be clear on this. That's cumulative. That's the three-year contract. In that time frame the taxpayer, all of us in the province, would have to find an additional $634 million. That's what this legislation represents in respect to the nurses' contract.

The $210 million. The difference there was to add to that, so it would be $634 million of what we're bringing forward here, and to have agreed with what was presented that day would have put in another $210 million, making it $800-plus million — a very, very large amount of money.

What started to happen at this point was that we had a negotiation starting back in January, which of course you're aware of. There was a huge demand that initially came to the table. Then subsequently, as we get closer to the end, we try and start this mid-point bargaining. Like I say, there was already a huge amount. My responsibility was to see whether or not I could fashion some sort of small negotiated settlement at the end of the day, and $210 million, for the purpose of discussion, was not in the ballpark.

J. MacPhail: Again, just for the sake of the public, it takes a great deal of getting used to, to deal with such large numbers, and I fully appreciate that. When one is talking about tens of millions of dollars, I fully understand that that is sometimes overwhelming for the public. It does need to be put into the context of the overall health care budget, which now stands at $9.3 billion. That's annually.

Once again, I do this only for clarification for the public. The $684 million is over a course of three years, and therefore the $630 million-odd is on a budget that over three years would be $28 billion. Let's just be clear about that. I do appreciate the minister spending time with us on this, because the acknowledgment of this will come as useful information, certainly, for those that thought they were going to continue to bargain.

If the difference between the employer's proposal of July 16 and the nurses' proposal of August 6 hovers around $70 million annually or $210 million over three years, a very quick calculation — and believe you me, it's quick — is that that's about three-quarters of a percent of the health care budget. It's a little less than three-quarters of a percent. The way I do that is that the health care budget is $9.3 billion, and $70 million is about three-quarters of a percent. You can check the math on that. It's not key, but I don't think it's anything more than that of the health care budget. I also understand that the health care budget pays for many things other than nursing.

I don't want to mislead the minister on this. We have a difference of about three-quarters of a percent of the health care budget that was outstanding between the nurses' last proposal and the employer-imposed proposal — $70 million annually. I also know that part of the government's strategy, given what the consequences of this legislation may be, is to try and recruit nurses from elsewhere. They've made it quite clear that there is a recruitment strategy; it was part of the new-era agenda to recruit nurses.

Believe you me, I do understand how difficult it is for ordinary British Columbians — which we all are, as are the nurses, as are the patients — to understand the magnitude of these numbers. They are huge. Our health care system takes up 40 percent of our budget. Did the minister take into account in his recommendations to cabinet that a difference of $70 million was…? Was it necessary to take the risk to heighten the exodus of nurses from the profession? Did he think that was a risk worth taking, for less than three-quarters of a percent?

Hon. G. Bruce: First of all, in respect to the numbers and apples and oranges, I think that if we're going to do service to this debate, we should stick to the numbers. Now, you can do the extrapolation or the multiplication, if you like, relative to the Health budget. What we're talking about here is negotiation of a very specific but important group of people that work in our health care system. Their compensation package going into this negotiation represented $1.362 billion in total. That's the number we would reflect on.

What was and is in this bill, this legislation that we're bringing in, is in addition to that — some $634 million in the entirety of this contract. So you'd have the $1.362 billion. These are huge numbers. You would add to that this offer that's been made of $634 million — so just about $2 billion in wages and salary to this particular bargaining group.

It's a very large amount of money, and I don't think we ought to trivialize it. I'm not sure that you mean to do that, but it's not a trivial half a percent or three-quarters of 1 percent at all. This equates to a 23.5 percent increase to the actual nurse — which is, as we all know, a very large increase in today's wage scales out there to a body that is very deserving, dedicated and committed to the health care and the patients of the province of British Columbia.

I don't think we ought to go down the road in this discussion and try to bring in a whole pile of other numbers. If our intent here is to truly understand and my intent is to bring out where my thinking was so that the general public and particularly those people involved in the dispute have an understanding, then we should work from the real numbers. It's not that total health care number.

Again, it comes down to the fact that this compensation package is a very large increase already. Did I have a wish of being able to find a negotiated settlement? Well, I would have been the happiest person in the world if I'd been able to find a way in the last few days to come up with a negotiated settlement. This isn't the direction that I wish to take at all, but clearly, it wasn't there. The amount still, even after the $634 million — $634 million rolls so easily off the tongue, and it is actually enormous…. To then be saying: "Well, for the sake of just a few $70 million more…." That's another $210 million on top of that $634 million, which goes on top of that $1.362 billion — a huge impact.

My thinking wasn't trivialized in any of this. I understood the risk and the concern. I'd heard the rhetoric out there. At the same time, there are so many other people that we as government also have to deal with in regards to wage settlements and budgetary matters. It isn't something that you can just simply stand back and say in isolation: "Well, just for this little bit more we would resolve it." It wasn't a little bit more; it was cumulatively a very large additional amount. So the decision was not taken lightly at all. It was, quite frankly, a very long weekend. That was no pun intended.

J. MacPhail: Given that, I'm curious to know if the minister was comfortable in his position about the solid nature of the employer's offer and the fairness of the offer and the difference between the two. Why was he not comfortable, then, to continue the work of the industrial inquiry commissioner? Why, given his view of the solid nature of the employer's position, was he not comfortable putting this matter to third-party resolution? I ask it for this reason. Again, to refer back to the extreme step that the government took, not by our accounts.... We're not doing political rhetoric…. Imposing one side's point of view on another in a bargaining situation is an extreme step. It says so right here — a review of the determination.

Yes, $70 million is lot of money. But in the context of our health care system and the value that nurses play in our health care system and the ability to recruit and keep nurses here…. Given that it was down to $70 million per year — $210 million over three years — why did the minister reject third-party resolution and test his solidly held view? I think that in his mind he holds the view solidly and has reached it in a thoughtful way. Why did he not want to test that in a way that virtually every other dispute is resolved, which is to put it to some form of binding third-party resolution?

Hon. G. Bruce: In a sense, it would have been a nice way to go, because quite frankly, as Minister of Labour I wear this. The fact of the matter is that the mandate was spent. The manner of a negotiation, how it takes place…. Usually both parties have a point that they would like to get to, and over the time of negotiation, back and forth, it sort of makes its way to that point.

If the negotiation starts with one party way out, with a very large demand, and then it saunters along back and forth, back and forth, you get to this final point which really, quite frankly.... I don't mean to put it into political terms, but it happened during the election. I'd hoped that we could still find some other way to negotiate some other aspects of it to the end, but you're already in a very large amount of money that had been presented.

I really think it's unfair to keep coming back to the $70 million a year, that it was only that amount that was left, and boy, if we could just get that, we would have had a deal. I understand the frustration, and I understand the friction that can be developed upon an imposed settlement. I didn't take this lightly at all, but there wasn't anything more.

For me to suggest or refer this to an arbitration process is simply deferring the responsibility that we have as a newly elected government. We'd been given the trust of the general public with a very large mandate only months ago to fix the situation, to deal with things in a businesslike way, to rebuild the economy, to correct those things that needed to be corrected. I think it would have been wrong for us, at this point, to come back and say: "Well, we're $210 million apart. There's already $634 million on the table, and we don't have the will, I guess, as government or the ability to accept the responsibility of making the decision." The taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia, have given us a message — a very strong message indeed.

So, rightly or wrongly — and they, in the end, will choose and decide — I made the decision that it wasn't a binding arbitration issue. It was a decision that we as a government would have to make, and I recommended such.

J. Kwan: The numbers, as I understand, are such that the latest offer from the nurses bargaining association puts their proposal and the forced settlement $70 million apart. During the period of June 19 to the date of the latest offer, which was August 3,

the nurses offered concessions to the government to bring the differences closer. Our understanding is that the offer that was made is a $137 million reduction from the last offer of July 26.

What we've seen since the June 19 date is that the minister forced a cooling-off period and said: "I am confident that there will be good-faith negotiations taking place during those 60 days, and I'm also confident and hoping that we'll have a resolution." I further quote: "There are five million people in this province who are concerned about health care in British Columbia. There are five million very good reasons why there is an incentive for the employer to negotiate in good faith with the nurses and the paramedicals and to reach a negotiated settlement." Those were the words of the minister.

My question to the minister is: since June 19 what substantive offers, if any, were put on the table to the nurses and paramedicals to bring the two sides closer together within the gap of over $207 million at that time?

Hon. G. Bruce: There were a number of items that came to the table. Probably the most significant one that was agreed upon was the concern that the nurses had for the casual call nurses, that they would be able to move through the steps. They had been capped, so as a casual nurse you could only get to a certain step, and that would be it. Through that particular process the HEABC agreed to change that, and now they'll be able to go though all nine steps. They won't be capped at mid-point. They were capped at three, actually, and now they can go all the way. It would be an approximate cost of $5 million.

J. MacPhail: Bill 2 imposed a cooling-off period for a maximum of 60 days. The initial foray of the government to invoke that legislation imposed a 50-day cooling-off period. Those 50 days expired yesterday, but there was still a ten-day period left. In fact, it's my understanding that the minister has extended the cooling-off period to the full 60 days.

Given the fact that Mr. Ready, the industrial inquiry commissioner, was so engaged in this dispute, given that he had done so much work already and, in the minister's own words, was fully up to speed on the dispute up to and including this week, why did the government choose the route of clause 2(1)(c) to impose the employer proposal and not choose what virtually exists in almost every other area, which is to refer the matter to binding third-party resolution in the period of the ten days left in the cooling-off period, given that so much of the work was already in place for third-party resolution to take place?

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear on this. I answered the question about binding arbitration, about why I didn't think that we should go there and why I recommended not to. I can restate all that, but I'm not sure that's really what you want me to do. I'd be quite happy to. Is that what the question was related to? Sorry, I maybe misunderstood you.

J. MacPhail: I took from the comments about the outright rejection by the government of binding arbitration that the parties couldn't agree and the government wanted to bring the matter to a close. That's how I interpreted your rejection of third-party dispute resolution. That's what I heard.

Then my subsequent question is: with the goals of the government to bring the matter to a resolution in an expeditious way, fully understanding that the parties were apart, could the government not have achieved the same goals by using their extension of the cooling-off period to put the matter to third-party dispute resolution and saved what is now chaos in our hospitals as we speak?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to answer this again, then. I'd been making it very clear from the day we brought in the cooling-off legislation that I was looking for a negotiated settlement and that I wasn't extending the cooling-off period. Before you jump up and say, "Well, you did," yes I did. The point I was trying to draw — and keep the pressure on in respect to the two parties — is don't expect that when we get to the end of the 50 days, we're going to be throwing in another ten days so you can negotiate a settlement. Don't expect that unless we are really close and there's something that's actually happening.

So if you just reflect back, there were several meetings, and so on and so forth, that took place between the parties. We got very close to the cooling-off period coming to an end, and that's why I contacted both parties. I wanted to know firsthand, speaking with those both within my office and the other party by telephone, whether indeed there was anything that I could determine, knowing that there was a great distance between the parties, so we could fashion some sort of negotiated settlement. It became very clear and very obvious that with the distance, even though there was a last-minute proposal, it wasn't good enough.

Often settlements are made in the last few minutes, the last few days because people see a line coming up and there is an adjustment which gets you close enough to make the deal. I took the nurses' proposal in good faith, and I believe that they presented it on their behalf in good faith. I took it; I researched it. It became evident to me that there wasn't enough in it so that I would be able to fashion a negotiated settlement as the parties were still millions of dollars apart — even utilizing the nurses' numbers if you like, that was $210 million. Our numbers are $224 million on the cumulative total, a tremendous difference, keeping in mind that already on the table — we're not starting at zero — was $634 million. This would be another $210 million or $220 million added to that.

So that was the process of how we came to this. The extension of time was there as a safety gap. That's why we went 50 days. It was very clear in this, through all

of what I said publicly, that I was looking for a negotiated settlement. No, I would not be extending the cooling-off period. That was to imply that I was looking for a negotiated settlement. When we got to the end of that, if we did, then unless we had a last little bit of wiggle room, or whatever you want to call it, to be able to fashion a deal, I wouldn't be extending it from that point.

To put it to an arbitration process…. I want to be clear on this again. You have to remember that the initial demand started at 60 percent back there in the early part of this year. It was a huge, huge demand to begin with, and it has come all the way down to 23.5 percent now.

If one were to look at it from the other end, starting at zero and working up, 23.5 percent is a very, very sizable increase. It's giving our health care workers, our nurses, total compensation that will make them the highest-paid in Canada. So when we're talking about trying to make sure that all these discussions lower the tone, we want a situation in the hospital where people are working together, and we want to try and reduce the chaos. That's if we can. I know it's difficult, because people have been involved in this very frustrating negotiation for a long time.

They could take a two-count and step back and say: "What did we just get? Well, we just got 23.5 percent. We were just made" — if you want to say it; arguably, I would say they are — "the highest-paid nurses in Canada."

What does that mean? Well, it means that if you wanted to practise, to be a nurse in Canada, where would be the best place to go for compensation, if total compensation was what was driving you? You well know, and so do many others, that that's not really what drives the people who go into caregiving. It's a gift that people have. That compensation package is a reflection, obviously, on how society respects that profession.

This 23.5 percent is a huge, huge increase; it's $634 million. This group of people are being told: "Yes, you are extremely important to us. In British Columbia our economy is in shambles, in the tank, and we are rebuilding it. We've had the poorest-performing economy of any of the provinces in Canada. Even so, we understand your frustration, and you mean enough to us that we are going to bring in legislation — albeit not something we're cheering about, because we would have liked a negotiated settlement — that is going to give you the highest total compensation package in Canada."

I understand the frustration, but if you can try and get past that frustration and see what's on the table, then let's move into rebuilding the health care system. That's where we have to go with this.

J. MacPhail: It's quite an admission of failure on the part of the minister that the two goals that he had set out after the tabling of Bill 2 failed. He failed miserably in both of them: (1) that he achieve a negotiated settlement and (2) that he not have to extend the cooling-off period. I appreciate his honesty and his forthrightness, but it is quite an admission of failure. So here we are today having the terms of the employer proposal forced on the nurses and the cooling-off period extended.

It's in that context that we must judge the effect of the legislation. I understand that the government is saying to the world: "Look at the nurses; look at what they're getting — 23.5 percent." Nobody's disputing the 23.5 percent. The nurses themselves are disputing the best wages and working conditions; they're disputing that. I understand how public opinion plays such an important role in government's ability to carry out its legislation. I understand that the pundits are saying: "God, nurses should be grateful." I understand that lots of the public who are ordinary working people themselves in the public sector or in the private sector are questioning why it is that nurses aren't jumping with glee to accept this offer.

At the end of the day it isn't about what the Minister of Labour feels about the value of this offer, and it isn't about what the Leader of the Opposition feels about this offer. It isn't about what a very, very hard-working conservation officer in the government thinks about this offer or what a construction worker thinks about the offer. It's about what the nurses themselves believe to be the value of the offer compared with what they value as their self-worth. At the end of the day, in ordinary circumstances with free collective bargaining, that's who has to decide.

Now, the government has taken away all avenues of free collective bargaining here — twice. I just wonder, again, in that context of a labour market working in British Columbia, in a global context, why — and I expect the minister will say that he's already answered this — it is that in the context of just straight labour market conditions.... Given his premise that the government is now espousing everywhere, that nurses should be happy with the offer because of its colossal nature, why was he not willing to risk putting that to the test of a third-party dispute resolution mechanism? In fact, the premise that the minister puts forward is exactly the kind of premise that an arbitrator or an OIC takes into account — exactly that.

Hon. G. Bruce: If it would be that calling me a failure would make everybody in the health care system happy and there would be a jump of glee and people would be coming back to work and be happy about all this, then that's fine with me. I have no personal gripe in this thing one way or the other. If that makes everybody happy, then load it right over here, and I'll take that part. I don't have a problem with that.

If it is that we're actually trying to debate this issue and have some understanding of how it is we've come to this course of action, it comes down to where one sees themselves in respect to the responsibility to the taxpayers as a whole. I'm not talking about the nurses.

The other thing I'd like to clear up here is that I have not once said that the nurses in this part of this discussion ought to be happy and jumping for glee. I've not said that. I've made it very clear that I understand the level of frustration they have within the workplace and the toll that this whole negotiation process has taken. It's been very poorly handled. Now, you can throw that at me if you like. I was actually referring to prior to my taking on this role, but that's my little dig back.

The fact of the matter is that we come to this whole notion of whether it's going to be turned over to an arbitrator. You seem to be quite focused on that. As I made it very clear, somewhere along the line in society people have to start taking responsibility for what it is they want and what it is they do. In the political world, somewhere along the line politicians have to stand up and start taking responsibility for how it is they spend the taxpayers' money. It would have been actually, quite frankly, easier to turn it over to an arbitrator, who would have cut some sort of deal. We could have brought it back and said, "There now. We in government have done what we've had to do. We've come up with a deal," knowing full well that the deal that's already on the floor, that's already embodied in this bill, gives our health care workers, our nurses, the highest total compensation package in the country. It was already to the extent of what taxpayers could afford — or not, depending how you look at the entire fiscal situation of the province.

I make no apologies for it. The buck does stop here. We as a government have said very clearly that we're going to rebuild the economy. We're not going to hide behind processes when it's already evident that a decision has to be made. If it happens that the general public are happy about that decision, so be it. If it happens that the general public are unhappy with that decision, so be it. Four years from now, or three years and ten months from now, the general public will judge us on the job that we've done as government representing their views, their wishes and how we've managed their tax dollars — which you know and I know, at this point, they dearly want managed efficiently and effectively. And that's what we're doing.

J. MacPhail: I would say that tough action is actually playing very high-stakes poker by allowing a method by which one side becomes a loser and the other side becomes a winner. The consequences of that high-stakes poker are being played out as we speak. There will be a cost to patient care for that. There already has been a cost to patient care. It's not a cost to patient care that occurred over the last ten years. It's a consequence of the last ten days — literally the last ten days. There's also a consequence of the despair of individual nurses leaving the profession as a result of this legislation.

The high-stakes poker that the government is playing will have its own monetary consequences, I expect. I certainly hope not; I actually do hope not. I have several people who are very close to me who require patient care and hospital care, so I really wish that the minister will have the ability to win the poker game. But in the event that he doesn't, all I say is that there could have been a way, a very expeditious way, that allowed nurses and the employer to have their issues heard in an unbiased, balanced and fair way. That is through third-party dispute resolution, and that's simply not available to the parties.

In the course of that examination, the government could have made a presentation about how the tax cut for nurses is of such great benefit to the nurses. They could have explained about how a tax cut for corporations equivalent, on an annual basis, to the total three-year cumulative basis made more sense than paying the nurses. That's all. Yet all of that opportunity is now lost. We have a system where, for the very first time, the issue of how nurses work in the system is being put before the courts. That's as a result of this government's actions.

In the course of the toing and froing, the giving and taking, by the nurses bargaining association and the employer, the nurses made a substantial move in the area of designated days off. It was part of an overall package that the nurses presented to the government. Did the government take that proposal and legislate the concession — the move, the great move that the nurses made on designated days off — and impose that in this legislation? Or did the employer just take that one concession by the Nurses Union and incorporate it into its package that it gave to the government to legislate?

Hon. G. Bruce: This isn't a game of poker; this isn't a game at all. What's at stake here and what it is that all of us in the House are concerned about is the health care system of British Columbia, not only in this minute of debate with respect to the contract that's before them but in the much bigger and much larger picture of sustaining an efficient and effective health care system not just for the life of this contract but for years to come.

You know and I know and this House clearly knows, as of the debate that took place with the Premiers' conference, that the luxury of dealing with our health care system in a manner that says the status quo will be maintained isn't there anymore. There has to be change. There has to be change in how we operate our hospitals and how we deliver the service.

This is not a poker game, and it's not about winners and losers. It is about making sure that the actions taken today reflect the ability for our society to have a health system that will be there for all of us throughout the province not just for today but for many, many days to come. I think it's really important that we understand that, because when we talk in the context of the numbers that we are, they are colossal. When you start talking billions of dollars, they are so large it's hard for many of us to comprehend.

In dispute here is a bill that legislates an agreement that gives the nurses a settlement of some $634 million over the cumulative time of that three-year contract.

That's not a win; that's not a loss. That's a fact, and what you're now debating with me is the amount of money here or there or what have you as to how we came to fashioning this legislation. The fact of the matter is that this legislation reflects at the end of the day, after all things had been tried, the ability of the taxpayer to pay. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that's even a correct statement. It's what the taxpayer will have to pay.

Now, in regard to the designated days off, the bill is very clear on that. Much of the debate has been around trying to find a way to attract and retain — to retain the nurses we already have here in the health care system and to attract new nurses to the province, to encourage younger people to get into the nursing profession. We also have to have the ability within the hospitals to be able to manage effectively.

What designated days off did was actually counter, because what a person could do as a casual or part-time was designate two days off, and then if they were asked to work those two days, they would get paid double time. This isn't a jab at nurses or the people in that field. This is how the system was built, so they're only following a system which is crashing. They could work two days and get paid for four. Combine that with the fact that we are short of nurses, and we're reducing our complement of the workforce.

When there's a call through the public right across this country for more nurses and to find people that can take on those roles and responsibilities that we need within our health care system, it would be folly — foolish in the extreme — to carry on with a process that actually encourages people not to be working in the health care system as much as they may be able to. That's why the change was made.

J. MacPhail: My interest in the specifics of issues around the designated days off arises only from trying to achieve an understanding for that taxpayer about the employer's premise that the nurses in British Columbia are the best-compensated in Canada. That's my only intent.

The employer has argued that the nurses are the best-compensated. Can the minister express it in clear terms, then, for the nurses who as recently as this morning are disputing that on an individual basis? Can the minister then outline for his claim, which I don't have the ability to dispute — I honestly don't have the ability to confirm or challenge — what length of service and what experience a nurse today has to have in order to be called the best-paid nurse in Canada? Can you describe that nurse for me, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: By April 1, 2002, a nurse in British Columbia at the top level will make $32.42, which would be the same rate as the nurse that's comparable in Alberta. However, a starting level 1 registered nurse in 2002 will make $46,400. A starting level 1 RN with eight years' experience in 2002 will make $61,000 a year. In this agreement we have the highest mileage rate that would be paid in Canada, at 44 cents a kilometre. We have the highest on-call premium in Canada. I believe that's $3 per hour for the first 72 hours, and then it's $4.25 for every hour after that on top of the hourly rate that they're already paid; maintenance of the highest vacation entitlements in Canada; a first-year nurse would also receive four weeks' vacation the first year; maintenance of 100 percent employer and health welfare benefits, which is the highest employer-paid rate in Canada. There were also improvements to the long-term disability supplementary monthly benefits.

I think that's fairly reflective if one takes that and then compares all of those things combined to other jurisdictions in Canada. The total number puts them at the highest paid in Canada. In respect to hours worked for a workweek, we are 36 hours, and that is the lowest in Canada. I think that's also an important number when one reflects on the demands on our health care workers and the demand on their family life. There are shift premiums, shift differentials. We virtually lead in all of those categories — not every single one of them but, far and away, the majority of them. If one would do a cumulative total and comparison to other jurisdictions in Canada, I would say that they will receive compensation that makes them the highest-paid in Canada.

Now, being as we're in a dispute, if you want to put the little quotation mark in there and say "arguably," I'll go that route. If one were to then take a look at how it is you retain nurses and how you keep nurses in the system…. If it were that nurses were going to leave as a point of protest from what's getting here or from a point of saying there are other jurisdictions in the world that would be better to go to…. And this isn't the argument of the dispute; this is just in a businesslike reflection, if you like. You'd be hard-pressed if you were sitting there at the kitchen table with your family and saying, "Look, I'm nursing here in British Columbia. I can go back to Prince Edward Island and make about a third less" — or even more. I think it is more than a third less. I mean, if you went down every one of the jurisdictions in Canada, you would have a hard time making the case to your family sitting at the table for a good business decision — from a standpoint of income only, I'm talking about — that: "Let's get up and move somewhere else."

If you're talking about moving down to the United States, again it would be important that one looks at all of what is offered and then the hidden costs of what's not offered, in respect to the U.S. — higher health costs, for one. Now, some of this is all a bonus; I appreciate that. But on balance, if we are looking at the issue of retention and attraction and bringing more people here to the province to practise nursing or to encourage them through the educational system, this package looks after that aspect of things. So you need

to get out of the dispute side and take a look at this strictly as a practical application.

I could go on at great length about how I consider that life in British Columbia would be far superior to other places in Canada or through the U.S., but that's not part of the debate. That's just my excitement for living in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I certainly do agree with the minister that this legislation will guide nurses in making their determination about their future career paths. I absolutely agree with him. When I say that it's high-stakes poker, it's on that basis that I make that comment. This is exactly what nurses will decide. This legislation will guide nurses as they decide about how they progress within or without their careers.

Mr. Chair, I can't find in here — and I know I'm leaping ahead on sections — the date of enactment. I assume it's on royal assent, which means the day that this passes. I only make reference to that because I can't find…. It's enacted by regulation or when it comes into full force and effect, so my apologies for leaping ahead.

I only do that to say that when this legislation is passed and the employer's proposal is enforced on the nurses, can the minister stand up and describe the nurse who will be the best paid in Canada that day? Describe that nurse. Is it a six-year nurse? Is it a nine-year nurse? Is it a nurse in ICU? If I could just have a description of that nurse.

Hon. G. Bruce: Our comparative work — the way we've done the comparison on this — is based on a general duty nurse. That's the majority of the nurses in the system.

The other thing I just want to point out — I'm not sure if I've mentioned this, so I'll mention it again if I haven't — is that on the incremental steps, over 50 percent of our nursing group will be at the highest level when this is passed. They'll go right to the ninth increment.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the flip side of that coin is that on the 50 percent that aren't at the highest level, the government saves in terms of opportunity cost. The government saves when the nurses that are not at that highest level take longer to reach the highest level, and so there are opportunity cost savings for the employers. My question was a very simple one, and I'm not going to belabour it. My question was: when this legislation takes effect and the employer's proposal dominates the nursing profession, is there a nurse, a general duty nurse in British Columbia, who on that day can stand up and say "Yep, I'm the best-paid nurse in Canada"? That was my question, and I didn't get it answered. So be it.

	YEAS — 73
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again, and Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Bill 8, School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 8; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll just take a minute before we start to introduce the staff person who's with me today. It's Peter Owen, who is our senior legislative adviser.

B. Locke: A question to the Minister of Education. In the community I live in, Surrey, there is concern that the protection of parent volunteers won't address an issue specific to Surrey. School board chair Mary Polak is quoted in the Sunday, August 5, newspaper as saying that it contains the same clause that kept volunteers out of the schools.

The school board chair is concerned about a clause that reads: "The board must not use volunteers to provide services that would result in the displacement of an employee." The concern refers to an action taken by CUPE against the school board that resulted in CUPE workers providing the very services that parent volunteers were providing. In February 2000, breakfast clubs, hot lunches and safe arrival programs previously run by parents were discontinued and are now part of the CUPE collective agreement. Can the minister shed some light or give some direction to the Surrey school board so that the intent of this bill can be realized in Surrey?

Hon. C. Clark: The intent of this bill is very clearly to ensure that parents have the right, enshrined in legislation, to be able to volunteer in the children's schools while at the same time not allowing those volunteers to displace existing employees. That's our intent with the bill. It would be impossible for me to make a direct comment on a collective agreement that's been negotiated by a local school board or on those specifics that are in that agreement.

What I would very strongly recommend is that the Surrey school board seek legal advice about the impact of this legislation on their collective agreement from the B.C. Public School Employers Association, the bargaining association on behalf of B.C. School Trustees. I'd suggest that that would probably be the best source of information about the very specific elements of this collective agreement.

Hon. G. Collins: I will call Committee of Supply. We'll begin with the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G. Hogg: In support of this vote it's my pleasure to stand and talk about the important work of this ministry. On behalf of Minister Reid and myself, I will soon be welcoming a number of our staff members, staff members who've been surprised that we've been called up this quickly. I want to extend my appreciation to them and to all the staff of the ministry, who day by day do the enormous work of this ministry. We receive somewhere in the neighbourhood of 34,000 reports of abuse or neglect a year. That's over 100 a day, and our staff have to make some of the most difficult decisions possible in determining whether or not a child should be removed from their home.

The last decade has been a very challenging one for British Columbians. Today we combine one of the slowest-growing economies with some of the most expensive programs. We know that we're in difficult economic times, and in difficult economic times the work of this ministry is most needed.

Mr. Chair, the government is committed to ensuring better services so that all the children have the opportunity and the supports they need to reach their full potential. In this ministry that means we have to work very hard to provide better services for both children and families and to provide them more efficiently and effectively.

The ministry has over 10,000 children in its legal care, many of whom are medically fragile and have special needs. Overall, the ministry serves some 400,000 people each year; that's one in ten citizens in this province. In fact, the ministry provides twice as many bed days a year as all of the acute care hospitals in this province combined.

The Speech from the Throne outlined some of the commitments that this government is making with respect to this ministry, which include better services for children, families and first nations; open, accountable government; and responsible, accountable management of British Columbians' public resources and tax dollars. These goals are shared by British Columbians, and these goals transcend the barriers that too often divide us one from another along a number of ideological lines.

Ideology has little to do with the choices that parents with young children make every day. They make choices each day about their children's care, about their well-being, about their health and about their relationships. They make choices about the shape and the direction of the child's future. Every child is different, and every parent needs a choice of options.

Because we know that the quality of care children receive in their early years means everything — it means everything about how their brains develop; it means everything about how they function in school; and it means everything about how they grow up to be successful, thriving adults — we are committed to supporting families so that they have the opportunity to raise healthy, successful children. This commitment is reflected in this year's budget.

It is an investment in our future, one that will support families with a 25 percent provincial income tax cut. By January 2002 British Columbia will have the lowest base personal income tax rate in Canada for the bottom two brackets. This puts money back into families' budgets and will help them provide the safe, nurturing environment that children require to bring them and this province back to prosperity.

The priorities that were laid out in the Premier's letter to myself and my colleague the Hon. Linda Reid are to examine opportunities for greater local delivery of children and family services; to develop a plan for aboriginal children receiving ministry services in cooperation with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; to develop a plan to lead an increase in family support services; to review the current legal status of children with autism and make recommendations; to develop a framework for attracting more foster parents and support today's foster parents; and to provide greater support to early childhood development programs.

This ministry's budget of $1.55 billion is an increase of $189.5 million, or 14 percent, from the restated 2000-01 budget. The total reflects the transfer of addiction treatment and public health programs to the Ministry of Health. For the programs that remain in the ministry, this budget is actually slightly greater than the budget introduced by the previous government a year earlier. It does not represent a cut in social spending. It provides for significant increases in ministry staff, wage and benefit increases for employees of contracted agencies, and a number of program initiatives.

The sombre reality is that after only three months of this fiscal year, this ministry is already facing an estimated $55 million in unfunded cost pressures. These pressures are primarily due to an unexpected increase in caseload for children in care and adults with developmental disabilities in the first quarter of this fiscal year. The fiscal situation we have inherited calls for tough decisions in the short term. However, these money-saving measures will not affect child protection services. They will not reduce the level of any services the ministry now provides for children.

The savings we have already implemented around restraint measures will yield $12 million over the fiscal year from a freeze on new hiring of staff in headquarters and a freeze on discretionary spending. As prudent fiscal managers we have created a small contingency fund, and some of the pressures will be met through that.

We intend to respond to community concerns about the secure care legislation that was tabled by the previous government and engage in real community consultation. We will not introduce secure care this year, and that will produce a further budget saving of some $4 million.

The election and change of government have delayed progress in some of the new programs in areas of autism and early childhood development, for further budget savings of $3.4 million and $11 million respectively. I want to emphasize that these programs are proceeding and that savings result from the delays, not from cuts to the proposed services. Proposed enhancements to the school meal program and supported child care will be postponed, and in both cases the existing programs will be maintained. The budget savings of $6.4 million will be directed to services for children in care and adult community living.

The remaining amount needed to meet the unfunded pressures can be met through the ministry's ongoing utilization management program, adoption initiatives for children in care, increased recovery of costs and fiscally responsible management.

That means that this year the ministry will focus on better services to children and families; effective supports to children in care, including recruitment of foster homes and increased adoptions; increased emphasis on early childhood development and programs for families with special needs children; greater support for children and youth mental health and youth justice programs; better services to aboriginal children and supporting aboriginal people to look after their own children and families; support for communities to provide services to children and families in ways that best reflect the community's needs and strengths; and better support for adults with developmental disabilities to live independently in

their communities. These are solid commitments stemming from a responsible budget.

It is time that we put real accountability into the system and focused our resources to put the interests of children first, and we are planning to do just that. Recently, an executive realignment took place in the ministry that frees up some 24 FTEs. These FTEs will be redeployed to enhance our social worker capacities on the front lines. Eleven of them will be assigned to areas of children's mental health: one per region.

This realignment of responsibilities will also make it easier for the ministry to respond to whatever recommendations the core services review may reveal. The core services review is examining every program and service to ensure that resources are focused on the most important needs. Core services review is not directed specifically at expenditure reduction but rather at doing government right. By doing government right, we will provide an information base for a service-planning model that meets our fiscal requirements.

Government has an obligation to properly protect and provide for those most vulnerable in our society, especially children at risk and those in foster care. All of the experts agree that this has not happened in the past. As the child, youth and family advocate recently put it, British Columbia has made little progress in ensuring that young people's needs are met. For the most part, it has been all talk and no action.

Excellence in child protection should not be a partisan issue, yet the last government consistently refused to accept the offer from across the floor to improve services. This government is committed to providing effective services for children in care. Over the next years, this government will enhance training and resources for front-line social workers to properly protect children at risk. The two non-governmental members of the assembly will be expressly invited to join in advancing that aim.

The ministry is focused on recruiting and retaining staff to help reduce workloads and to establish stronger relationships between ministry clients and community partners, especially in the north. We hope to hire an additional 270 positions in the coming year, most of them on the front line, to deal with the workload and improve operations. We have a number of initiatives in place, including a northern recruitment and retention bonus to attract and retain qualified workers. This money is a commitment to the children and families who need professional support.

The ministry funds approximately 5,700 beds to provide safe, supported living for adults with developmental disabilities. More than 8,000 adults with developmental disabilities access day programs in this area. More than one-third of the ministry's total budget increase, $68 million, is going toward adult community living services. Almost all of it will go to supporting increased wages for community social service agency employees. However, the ministry is committed to maintaining service levels. We are concerned about wait-lists for these vital services and will focus on reducing wait-list times in cases where health and safety are the issues.

While we are investing in support of families for a better tomorrow, we cannot afford, in a responsible society, to ignore the needs of youth who are at risk today. A further $2 million will support youth justice programs. This extra funding, which comes from the federal government, will go to cover extra costs involved in implementing the new federal young offenders legislation.

In summary, the ministry will be investing in areas that we know will provide the greatest payback in the years to come. This budget supports the ongoing important partnership of ministry staff, youth, parents and families. This budget ensures that support is provided where it is needed, when it is needed. This ministry is working every day to help build stronger communities to support stronger families and, most importantly, to support and protect those most vulnerable people in our society: the adults of tomorrow, today's children.

D. Jarvis: I have a couple of questions for the minister and the deputy minister. On the North Shore we have a considerable number of autism situations. I understand how you're going about it, and I think everyone in this province will benefit from the new regime and that things will change to a certain degree. However, I wanted to get something in writing. So I am here to get the minister to commit. I understand that he is fully prepared to do it, but we'll see.

That is ostensibly the question of the early intensive behavioural intervention — the EIBI, I believe it is — versus Lovaas. I understand that your government and your ministry is now prepared to consider both systems of care and that it will be, ostensibly, the choice of the parent, within certain degrees, I guess, whether they want to go to the Lovaas system or to the EIBI. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Reid: With the member for North Vancouver–Seymour's indulgence, if he might allow me to put my opening remarks on the record, I will answer his question in the commentary.

It is my absolute privilege to serve this province as the first Minister for Early Childhood Development in Canada. There are certainly many areas we can address from a scientific perspective. The Premier of this province is absolutely committed to going forward and basing decisions on good science. This ministry, particularly in the areas of early childhood development, will go forward on that premise.

We have engaged Dr. Clyde Hertzman from the University of British Columbia to assist us in understanding and making better decisions around a child's developmental health — their readiness to go forward and to learn some things that will assist them, not just in their primary grades but certainly in their educational lives, their working lives and their lives in the community. We certainly understand the premise that parents do not raise children in isolation, that it

does take a village to educate a child. Frankly, it takes a community to come together to recognize that the goal is the educated citizen. How we arrive at that is a collective responsibility. That's where we are today in terms of, I believe, the Premier's commitment to establish the first-ever Minister for Early Childhood Development.

In terms of how we proceed, we have many avenues that we would like to cover. But certainly benchmarking measurement, a science perspective, will percolate through all the discussions we have. We want very much to secure a sense of entitlement for children in the social services area so that they indeed can have access in a timely manner to the services they will need when they're very young children. In fact, my mandate is "preconception to six years of age." It is vitally important to be involved when people are anticipating becoming pregnant, in terms of diet, nutrition and in terms of reducing the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome. That span is my area, if you will, my mandate.

It's my responsibility across government to reach into every ministry and to ensure that we are doing the right thing by the littlest citizens of this province. That is the goal of my mandate. It's certainly provincewide, across government, with a focus on those from preconception to age six that we will, in fact, craft better decisions as a result of having focused on this particular area.

The work of Dr. Fraser Mustard is absolutely clear. The research speaks strongly and loudly on this question. But if you're going to intervene, you intervene when the children are the youngest and, frankly, when the interventions are the least expensive. That is when you will have the most likelihood of success. You will not have parents waiting for services. You will have the opportunity to deliver services in a timely way. That is the goal, and across this term of government we will arrive at that goal so that we can treat families with some decency.

We also believe that community, the private sector, and the corporate sector all have a responsibility to go forward. We are going to partner with all kinds of delivery mechanisms and communities across this province to send the message that this is about a collective, that together we must address these very, very pressing issues. Together we believe we can deliver on a comprehensive, integrated service delivery model. We want to build on best practice. We want very much to deliver the message across the country that British Columbia is the finest place in the country to raise children and that we will always honour best practice. That is absolutely the goal.

We are in the process of sponsoring community forums with Dr. Fraser Mustard. He is a leading resource, world-renowned, in the areas of early childhood development. He will come to Victoria in October to do a forum. He was here with our MLAs. He was here with the deputy ministers of this government in terms of conveying a message about how important it is that each ministry, each minister, somewhere in their processing of how best to undertake their responsibilities, folds in the concept of early childhood development. Vitally important.

Certainly we believe in fiscal responsibility, so we will benchmark the kinds of interventions we put in place and have some kind of measurement tool that will allow us to report out effectively to the public.

The work of Dr. Clyde Hertzman on his early development indicator…. It's vitally important that we fold that into our thinking so that we can say today that when the children born in the year 2000-01, 2005-06 are entering the school system in kindergarten or grade 1, we will know the kinds of issues that best address their developmental health, their readiness to learn. That's vitally important to us. He also has work in the area of community mapping so that we can look at how best to support communities and how best to give communities the building blocks to do better things by the little guys in their care. It's vitally important that we work on those areas.

The human early learning program brings together researchers in a variety of disciplines from all of the province's universities. We want to continue that. Minister Hogg and I will only be successful if indeed there's partnership across government, across the province, and we all see a responsibility to look out for the littlest folk.

In the coming months I'm definitely going to be continuing my work with my colleagues across government to ensure that everyone has at the forefront of their agenda the youngest citizens of this province, that early childhood development becomes commonplace and that we have a sense that it's the responsibility of each and every one of us to go forward on those measures.

In terms of the member's question about the discussions around parents who have children with autism today, certainly we are committed to developing a range of choices. We want parents to have some opportunities. Autism is a spectrum disorder. It gauges a whole range of behaviours and presentation styles of children with autism. Because that's the case, you simply cannot have a single remedy. You have to have the opportunity to tailor, to customize, to individualize how best to deliver programs to children with autism.

We have begun, I think, the first-ever dialogue on behalf of our deputy minister and members of the Families for Early Autism Treatment. That's a door that has not been open in the past. Those families were absolutely frustrated by their inability to receive an audience from government and to make their issues known. We are in discussions. We will come together with some solution that we trust will meet the needs of the majority of individuals.

Are we opposed to any particular therapy? No. We see applied behavioural analysis as an umbrella, if you will, and under that, a variety of tools in the toolbox. There may be children who are better suited to the sensory integration model. There may be children who are better suited to the programs delivered under the early intensive behavioural intervention model. There

may be children better suited to the Lovaas type of delivery. All of those options are on the table, and we are in discussion on all of those options today.

D. Jarvis: It's very nice to finally see that there's a minister of state who knows what she's talking about. I think the parents in my riding and in communities on the North Shore will be pleased to know that they're in good hands with children and families in this next ten or 20 years. In any event, thank for your answer. That's appreciated.

I want to ask another question in regard to the fact that the report is — I don't know if you can answer this — that one out of every 500 children comes down with autism. It's sort of the net figure that you're using: one out of every 500. A few years back it was considerably higher. Whether it was one out of 5,000, rather than 500…. Why has the preponderance of it dropped so much? Is it because there's better detection?

Also, I was told by one parent from my area who…. It's one of those unfortunate situations where he has two boys that have…. He said there's a higher preponderance of autism in the Silicon Valley than elsewhere in North America, and there's a higher preponderance of autism in areas that have a higher standard of education. For example, I'll take West Vancouver, which has, say, more engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers, etc. Does the ministry know what science is coming out with now with regard to that, in your sort of research end of it? Is it true that a place like the Silicon Valley has a high preponderance of it, more so than any other area? That's a question I would like to throw out.

Hon. L. Reid: It's not our understanding that the incidence of autism has changed. It's our understanding that when you broaden the definition to become an autism spectrum disorder, you are in fact picking up diagnoses, if you will, that would have previously been separate and discrete, as Asperger's and as Rett's Syndrome. Now they are included in a single definition. We believe there are roughly 1,600 children in the province today with autism, and I believe roughly 450 of those are under the age of six years.

The second part of your question, in terms of research…. They're good questions. We don't have research that would support that contention today. Certainly we have contracted with the University of British Columbia to help us understand, in greater detail, some of those questions. I will happily pose those questions to the researchers. At some point they will come back to us with some useful information.

D. Jarvis: To the ministers. I don't know which it would be. I think it's probably the Minister of Children and Family Development. During the last couple of years I was assisting the minister of state in the critic end of Children and Families. I felt pretty well that I was more or less her bodyguard, because she went into places where no person would dare to tread.

In any event, this is in regards to the previous government. They had promised, on the substance abuse end of it, all these new detox centres in the province. It seemed to me that over a three-year span, the figure was up at 75. Then when we questioned the government, it was only 18, and then further it was at 25 or 30. I was wondering if you could tell me whether the detox centres that the previous government had promised…. I think it was up to 75 or 78 in this province. Have they been looked after, or are we still talking and not doing? Also, I know it's a large question, and you may not want to answer right now because it's too big a situation, but is there follow-up care coming into these detox centres throughout the province?

Hon. G. Hogg: I certainly sympathize and empathize with the issues and concerns that the member presents. I have the same frustration, having dealt with a number of adolescents in trying to access addiction services.

In the organizational placement of addiction services, alcohol and drug treatment services, they've been moved to the Ministry of Health Services. It is our hope that whilst they are now placed within Health Services, we will have a more effective and better response to it — to the issues that are contained in it — than we've certainly seen over the past ten years. So in response to your specific question, I'm unable to answer that, and I'm sure the Minister of Health Services will be delighted to hear that same question posed to him.

D. Jarvis: That's all the questions I have. I'll be heading off to Health estimates now.

I. Chong: I want to first put on the record how very much I appreciate the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development being here. I realize that with the new structure and the Premier's goal and vision of seeing attention being paid in this area…. It's supported by all of us here. With the division of responsibilities, it shows that we have an opportunity, one that we've never had in years gone by.

I also recognize that both ministers are inheriting unfinished business from a previous administration. Some of the problems that we may bring forward now are as a result of that. But for the benefit of our constituents, we need to just put them on the record once again and ask the ministers. I do acknowledge, as I say, the spending pressures in their ministries due to the amount that they inherited.

Following along the lines of my colleague the member for North Vancouver–Seymour regarding the area of autism, I just wanted to be clear on the early behavioural intervention program that had been announced last September by the previous minister, Gretchen Brewin. I can say her name now; she's not an elected member. It had been announced that children under six would be entitled to access the EIBI program.

Unfortunately, a year's gone by, and some of those children who were still five have turned six and are no longer going to have access to that. Is there a transition? Is there some opportunity or has consideration been made so that these children are not going to be forgotten and have some access to the early behavioural intervention program that they have thus far been denied?

Hon. L. Reid: The member is correct. The early intensive behavioural intervention programs, the first round of RFPs went forward and gave us three providers across eight communities. I can tell the member that the second RFP process just concluded on August 7 — so days ago. There will be opportunity for us to look at that kind of hopeful provider list and, hopefully, offer a range of services.

The key aspect of your question is whether or not there is any transitioning once a child reaches the age of six. Frankly, the minister and I certainly believe that — not just in this area but across government — whether you're a 17-year-old schizophrenic, whether you're an 18-year-old child with autism, those barriers today, just to ongoing service and planning, need to be addressed in some detail and with some care.

So can I tell you today there's a significant transition plan in place? No. But I can tell you it's an issue that the minister and I are committed to addressing with some process and some plan so that indeed the transition beyond six for children with autism, the transition beyond 18 for individuals living in the community who require ongoing supports.... Those are issues. They were issues that were left, I believe, unaddressed by the previous administration. They are issues that are certainly are on our agenda.

I. Chong: I think the ministers have both received a copy of a letter that I had written to them on July 17 in regards to children with autism and the fact that parents who are coming to see me in my constituency express the necessity to have choice. As my colleague mentioned earlier — and the minister has responded — it's laudable that choice will finally be an option for parents. I think they're just anticipating what that will be as the program is rolled out.

Still on the area of autism, I understand that there is program implementation that is proceeding on schedule. For the benefit of myself and, perhaps, for the record, can the minister lay out what that program implementation is so that we know what is being on schedule, so that we can as MLAs follow it for our constituents?

Hon. L. Reid: I think the member is probably referring to some tension in the press regarding whether or not these programs had been delayed. These programs are absolutely on schedule. The only break in that process was the provincial election. The funding is in place. This is annualized funding for these programs, so the dollars have been committed and will be spent on this level of programming — no question. The only disruption, if you will, was the election process.

In terms of the member's comments on choice, we will do our absolute best to provide that range of choice, knowing that autism, being a spectrum disorder, is absolutely not a one-size-fits-all proposition. There may be children who require a number of different interventions between three and six years of age. We will honour that research that says there will be a range of programming probably required with individual children, and we'll do our best to put those choices before the parents of this province.

Hon. G. Hogg: If I could just add, with respect to the numbers, the amount that was expended for autism treatment last year under the previous government was about $2.83 million. This year we have budgeted $19.85 million, and $3.2 million of that is what the minister references in terms of the allocation of those dollars because of the break with respect to the election and our ability to get those funds out into the provision of services through a contract process, which has delayed that amount of it. That amount of the money will not be able to get out through the course of this fiscal year, but we are still moving it quickly. There has been no cutback in the funding.

The process has been slowed down a little bit, but we're still moving actively with that. In fact, a requisition for proposal has closed — I believe yesterday — and there has been a number more service providers who have applied for some of this money to provide provisions for children with autism spectrum disorder. It will be reviewed through the course of this month, making some decisions at the end of this month to include another set of service providers to allocate this money and provide more and better services for children with autism spectrum disorder.

I. Chong: It's very important for that information to be put out there, now that it's stated for the record. I think parents have been rather anxious over a number of months — years, actually for a while, but in particular the last few months — to know that it is moving as quickly, and its proceeding is reassuring to them.

I have a few other questions in this area, then I'll yield the floor. It may be to the Minister of Children and Family Development. The two areas — and I'll just give this to him so his staff can perhaps look at that — are in foster parenting and in community living for children and adults who are developmentally disabled. I know this issue comes up frequently, every year. All of us in our ridings deal with this because no part of the province is immune to families that have these concerns.

In the area of foster parenting, I understand there is a significant backlog of investigations. There are reviews, appeals, etc. that are happening. I do have one particular case where a constituent has been waiting

over six months for an answer to an appeal, for a process that began in January. Can the minister advise — and I appreciate that there's a core review services program that is underway through all ministries — whether this particular area has been given some attention as a priority?

With foster parenting, these are our children in care, children also at risk, and whenever there is a problem, a month or two months is lengthy. Six months can be disastrous. It disrupts families, as we all know. I'm just hoping to get an understanding of how soon this protocol and this appeal process would be considered, and whether there would be measurements put in place in the future, so that appeals do not take this long. I understand that in specific cases there will be exceptions that require the time. But if this is the general case, I would ask the minister: is this acceptable? Will a six-month delay be a standard and a criterion for his ministry?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly as a former foster parent, I'm well aware of the issues that are contained in that. In fact, I met yesterday with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and looked at some of the issues they have in terms of the evolution and development of protocols and supports they provide. I've agreed to meet with their executive committee in September to look at some of these issues, in terms of the supports they do provide to foster parents across the province. I know that the experience is enhanced greatly in terms of the services they provide. The ministry provides about $1.9 million to that association to provide support networks and support services to foster parents across the province. We certainly need to ensure that we are more efficient and effective in providing support to foster parents and recognizing that they are the backbone of some of the services we do provide in this province and that they are such a crucial and important part to the services we provide for children in care.

We will be continuing to work on that, and we will be entering into a campaign to try and attract more foster parents into the provision of foster parent services. Our ability to do that is certainly enhanced when we provide appropriate services, when we ensure that protocols are in place and when we ensure that we deal with and resolve issues foster parents have in a quick, timely and appropriate fashion. We will be doing everything we can in conjunction with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to do that and work toward those. If you have a specific issue or concern with a foster parent that we can assist you with, we'd be happy to look at that specifically and see if we can learn from that, resolve it and certainly learn how we may more effectively and efficiently provide those services and supports.

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that the minister has been so quick to meet with so many groups. Again, that's reassuring, and it's important for people who will review Hansard at a future time to know how much work has been done already in the short 60 days he has been in office.

In the area of foster parenting, if I could just leave this with the minister. In reviewing the processes and protocols, can consideration be made, if it is not already being considered, for foster parenting for people who are related to children? I think that still is problematic. I know in the past, when I raised this with the previous administration, there seemed to be discrimination in that area. I would just hope that the minister is able to review that at a future time.

The last area is the area of community living for children and adults who are developmentally disabled. I know that it's still problematic in this area as well. I am building up some substantial cases — again, this had to do with the previous government not being able to proceed quickly enough — of developmentally disabled young people who, once they turn 19, seem to get abandoned and lost in the system. I have in particular been working with one case for two years. Now that child is 19, and we are still in that crisis mode.

Again, not that this minister has been involved in that, but I just need to raise those kinds of issues. If the minister can shed any light on how quickly we're moving, that too could provide reassurance for all of us in our ridings who are dealing with people and families who have this challenge.

Hon. G. Hogg: With respect to your closing comments about foster parenting, let me just add that there are some provisions in the current act which have not been proclaimed and which we're reviewing that, I think, temper our ability to appropriately respond to the placement of children in relatives' homes. That presents problems for us across the province, where some of the conditions that we have in place for placement in foster homes and approving foster homes include some issues around the quality of the home, the quality of the house in a physical sense, as opposed to having an overriding factor that it's in the best interests of the child and keeping families together.

We are looking at those provisions of the act and looking at the potential for proclaiming those. I think that we will be able to better serve the best interests of a child and keeping families and/or extended families together with that provision. We've had a review of that; we're looking at that, and hopefully we'll be able to come back with recommendations around the proclamation of that which will facilitate the types of placements that the member refers to and certainly, I think, ensure that we keep families and relatives together rather than having to separate those. That has profound impact for some of the rural communities, in particular.

Secondly, with respect to your issue of community living for the developmentally disabled and the transition period, clearly there are problems and pressures around that issue, as the member knows. I'm sure most members will know that that's a pressure we receive in our constituency offices on an ongoing basis — and a concern. We have in place funds and programs for those transitions. We don't

That's particularly true when we see children who are going through secondary school programs who have access to that type of structure and support. They graduate, and then often there aren't support services and systems available for them. We see, in some cases, one parent having to stop work and stay home and provide that type of support. We need to be more effective and better in terms of responding to that.

However, as the member knows, there are tremendous budget pressures around. That's an expansion of services that we would love to be able to do, but it's certainly not something that we're going to be able to do in the immediate future, given the budget pressures that we have. We're looking at individual cases and trying to respond to them. The regions do a good job of trying to deal with and respond to that. If the member, again, has a specific case that she'd like us to look at, we would be delighted to look at it and respond to it as effectively as we can with that specific issue within the framework of the budget options that we have available to us.

I. Chong: I know the minister is fully aware of the concerns and issues, and the fact that he is aware and is prepared to look into it is reassuring, as I say, for all of us in our constituencies.

The last item I wanted to raise. I know we have a commitment to stop the endless restructuring that has always occurred in the ministry with the past administration. It's good to know that that will finally come to an end. It's a commitment that was made, and I know it will be a commitment that will be kept. But what has been raised in my constituency is a concern that there is an increasing number of staff. I don't know if it was this ministry or if it's a combination of ministries, with the economic and social development ministry having been restructured, etc. I notice in the estimates book that there is an increase in your FTEs in the years 2000-01 to 2001-02 of about 312 people. I'm just wondering if that was because of the restructuring, or in fact have there been other staff changes? Is it staff that are going to be our front-line workers, which is what we dearly need? Can the minister just give a quick response to that?

Hon. G. Hogg: Overall, the FTEs have reduced with respect to the ministry, and that is a result of the restructuring and the movement of public health and alcohol and drug programs to the Ministry of Health Services. So the overall numbers and that have dropped.

Within the areas of responsibilities that exist within the ministry, there have been three areas where there has been an increase in terms of FTEs, and that has been in the issue of secure care, in terms of the legislation that came. We are at this point not proceeding with secure care, so those won't be utilized at this point in time, until we've finished that.

In the area of early childhood development, which the hon. member is taking responsibility for, certainly we've looked at expansion, and I previously talked about the numbers, the expansion in dollars that we've looked at within that.

The third area has been an expansion with respect to the number of social workers, and there's been, as the member knows, a tremendous pressure on social workers around the province. We wanted to be able to get more front-line workers to be able to respond to the needs of the number of reports we receive with respect to allegations of neglect and abuse.

So those are the three areas that we've looked at some expansion with within the framework of those responsibilities that continue to exist within the ministry.

I. Chong: I just want to thank both of the ministers and their staff for providing information. I know that they're committed to the goals, which we support, of putting children first. I wish them well, and I will work with them over the next few months and years to see that their goals are achieved.

R. Lee: Just a quick question. I notice here in the estimates that there's an item, services for children and families, that occupies one-third of their budget. Also, this is a 20 percent increase this year over last year. A good portion of that is for the foster parents and homes. My question is: how is the performance of the foster homes monitored? I know in one case in my riding that the children under the foster parents…. Probably the foster parents are quite enthusiastic about keeping the children, and there is a problem of getting the children back to the parents. My question to the minister is: is there any effort in getting the children back to their families quicker?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are over 10,400 children in care in the ministry, and as I had commented earlier, there are some 34,000 reports a year, which means over a hundred reports a day, and out of that there are about 11 children a day who are removed from their homes. I believe that getting them back into their homes, with the appropriate supports, is certainly the first goal of the ministry. We have to make sure that we protect children. That's the first goal, and then we want to get them back and reunited with their families with the support services that are appropriate as quickly as we possibly can. In terms of being able to do that, within three months 40 percent of them get back into their homes, so I think that demonstrates the ministry's desire to put the services in and reunite the families as quickly as we possibly can.

Also, consistent with that and consistent with one of the questions that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked previously…. I made reference to some of the sections of the act which have not been proclaimed. Another one is called the kith and kin section, and that is the section which will again support being able to move people and keep families together, albeit they may well be extended families, and we have some legislative barriers to doing that at this point in time. So we believe that by proclaiming that section and by including the extended family as part of the resource base for a child, and maintaining the best interests and the protection of the child and keeping that paramount, we'll be able to keep them within the extended family and hopefully have the resources placed with the family to ensure that we reunite them as quickly as we possibly can. Again, the paramount issue has to be the safety of the child.

R. Lee: Sometimes the need to take away the children from the family is culturally sensitive. Some actions by the parents in some cultures may not be understood in general by the ministry. Could the ministry be more sensitive in certain areas in order to vary the need to take away children?

Hon. G. Hogg: All social workers are trained in cultural competencies and understanding and grasping that. We also have a number of advisory committees that help the ministry in making those decisions. We have an Asian advisory committee that looks at and tries to maintain that cultural sensitivity and reflect any type of issue within the ministry to ensure that we do have that appropriate sensitivity to the issues and concerns, because in a pluralistic and multicultural society we have to be aware and sensitive to those particular types of needs. But across that, we still have standards in this province that exist to ensure that children are kept safe, and we have to intervene with the state's responsibility.

One of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, jobs that we ask anyone to do on behalf of the people of this province is to go into a home and make a judgment with respect to whether or not a child should be removed, be it for a short period of time or a longer period of time. It's an incredibly difficult judgment to make. Our social workers are making those judgments every day, and often they are in no-win situations. You leave a child in a home that you think is going to be all right and provide supports….

It's not a science. There's not an ability to say specifically how that is going to work. We have developed a protocol for making those judgments and the protocol in this province is perhaps the best protocol in North America for making those judgments and decisions. When we compare the decisions that our social workers make in this province against decisions being made all over North America, we stand up very well. In fact, we are looked at from many parts of North America and the world as being the leader in terms of the protocols and decisions and standards that are made around that.

All that aside, it is still a very difficult task and chore. I have talked to many social workers who have sleepless nights because of decisions they have to make, or haven't made, as they make those decisions going into homes often late at night with a police officer and having to make a judgment. So when you blend in with that all the issues of the cultural sensitivities and practices, it becomes even more difficult to make those judgments and decisions. I think we should be supporting and helping social workers across this province with the tasks they have to do. Certainly, if you have any insights to assist in support of that, we would be delighted to hear those and would welcome those.

E. Brenzinger: I would like to ask the minister a question, but before I ask the question, I would like to state for the record that I feel that the expertise that's being brought to this ministry by the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development is a real asset to this sector and welcomed by all.

The question I have for the Minister of Children and Family Development is on supported child care. This is a program that was implemented in the early nineties for special needs children. It was a program for families to have the choice whether they go to a day care in their local neighbourhood, or wherever they wanted to go for service for their children, and be supported by the government-supported child care workers in their community. This also took away the choice of families to go to specialized programs if they choose to do so. Supported child care is being implemented, and I've heard from my constituents that there are a few problems with the program. I would like to know if this minister is going to be addressing problems that have developed with this new program in supported child care, and will he be doing it in the near future?

Hon. G. Hogg: The budget for supported child care this year is $34.10 million, and that services about 6,200 individuals. The ministry is in the process of developing provincial practice standards that encompass early intervention and infant development standards, training based on practice standards and support to programs to implement those practice standards. Those are the initiatives that are going on in terms of the quality, in terms of managing the program. Outside that context, of course, we're going through the whole core area review, and within the context of that, we'll be looking at how we can best utilize the expenditure of our dollars to support children in need and whether or not this is the most effective and efficient way of doing that. At this point it appears to be, and it appears to be hitting one of the principles that we talked about in the New Era document, which was giving parents choice. So it is an

option that provides that type of choice and an option that has been well received by the community at large.

I recognize there are some larger programs that have suffered as a result of that; they've not been able to maintain through this process. So we will be looking at that. Certainly I know that the member has lots of expertise in this area, and we'll be relying on her to help us review and look at and manage our moneys in the most efficient and effective way we can to provide services to those children in need.

E. Brenzinger: Hon. Chair, I have another question I would like to ask the minister of state. The question is: are we planning any educational programs for B.C. to develop their own ABA therapists to help autistic kids? Currently I understand that we have therapists coming from the States into B.C., and I'd like to know if we can do something about providing that education here in B.C.

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the member's question. Certainly, the challenge is for us to build capacity in British Columbia so that parents can engage British Columbia consultants — British Columbia therapists, if you will — because the downside today is that they're paying for those services in American dollars. They're paying a great deal for those services. If we can, in fact, reduce their financial burden by building capacity in this province, that's absolutely where we should go. Programs at Queen Alexandra can become a centre of excellence. From there we hope to be able to have individuals who will have the appropriate experience levels so they can go forward.

I'm also beginning discussions with the Ministry of Advanced Education about perhaps college programs taking on some of that ABA training. That's not an immediate prospect; that's a discussion at this point. But certainly we are prepared to look at all kinds of vehicles to see if we can arrive at a province that has capacity internally to address the issues the parents would like under the applied behaviour analysis model.

E. Brenzinger: Thank you for that answer. I want you, both ministers, to know that the people in my riding feel a lot of confidence in both of you being able to provide better service — the best service — to special needs children in the province of B.C.

Hon. G. Hogg: I earlier introduced Chris Haynes to a thunderous ovation from all of you who were present. Subsequent to that, we've been joined by Janice Aull and Les Foster. I hope you will provide them with a thunderous ovation equal to that provided Chris Haynes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to slide that in.

The Chair: Now we're going to have a recess before we move to the next ministry. Thank you all very much for attending.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to rise today to present the spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. The first thing I would like to do is to introduce the staff who are accompanying me at this moment. To my right is Gerry Armstrong, my deputy minister. To my left is Tom Vincent, the assistant deputy minister for management services division. Behind me is Lyn Tait, assistant deputy minister for post-secondary education division.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of those who work within British Columbia's public post-secondary education and training system and the staff in my ministry. These women and men deserve our recognition and thanks for helping to build a solid foundation for education in this province. I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years to build a top-notch education and training system that will meet the needs of British Columbians.

It's going to be a challenge, and we're all going to have to work very hard to successfully meet these challenges that are facing us. I am excited, however, at the prospect of building a system that is strong, accessible and responsive to the needs of our economy and our people both now and in the future. We have made that commitment, and we are going to keep it.

The estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education bring together post-secondary programs, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission and youth programs. I would like to give you a brief overview of these important areas before moving into the estimates debate.

Post-secondary funding and space allocations. Education is the key to a healthy and prosperous society. Public post-secondary education and training gives people the tools they need to compete and succeed in British Columbia's knowledge-based economy, and it opens the doors to job opportunities and careers. British Columbia is home to 28 public post-secondary institutions, six universities, five university colleges, 11 colleges, five institutes and one agency. The ministry's budget supports more than 155,000 student spaces in these institutions. Total funding for the institutions has increased by $129 million this year, a 10.35 percent increase over the 2000-01 levels.

Of this funding just over $35 million is allocated to the creation of 4,460 new student spaces at post-secondary institutions. Together with 565 new spaces dedicated to trades and technical training created from funding for the Industry Training and Apprenticeship

Commission, this brings British Columbia's total of new student spaces to 5,025. Of these new spaces, 450 will be allocated to nursing and nursing refresher programs and 89 towards practical nursing programs, a first step towards addressing B.C.'s health care crisis. Going towards salary and benefit increases and the costs of post-secondary accords signed in 2000-01 will be $20.57 million. Approximately $17 million will compensate institutions for lost revenue due to the continuation of the tuition freeze and the 5 percent reduction for the coming academic year; $13 million is allocated for core funding and deficit management.

Student financial assistance. Support for students in accessing education and training programs is an important part of our public post-secondary education system. Funding for British Columbia's student financial assistance program has been increased this year by $20.897 million dollars, or 15.7 percent, further strengthening a comprehensive loan and grant system. Approximately $9 million of that funding will go toward increased demand for the program, while $7.1 million has been allocated to extend B.C. student grants to accredited private institutions. This year it is estimated that 40,000 British Columbia student loans will be issued at a cost of $109 million. An additional $83 million is earmarked to cover the cost of about 28,000 B.C. student grants.

Tuition freeze and reduction. This government has also agreed to honour the previous government's commitment to a 5 percent reduction in tuition fees for 2001-02 at a total cost of approximately $14 million. Unlike the previous government we will fully fund that reduction this year so that costs won't have to be absorbed by institutions already strained from absorbing revenues lost as a result of underfunding associated with the continued tuition freeze. There are hidden costs associated with the lengthy tuition freeze. The impact of these costs is felt both by students and institutions alike. Over the next few months we will be undertaking consultations with students, educators and administrators on these costs to determine the best possible course of action needed to guide us into the future.

The Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. It is vitally important that education and training in British Columbia are responsive to the needs of a growing economy and to equip people to take advantage of future job and career opportunities. This is particularly important with respect to British Columbia's projected skills shortage, a shortage which will lead to increased opportunity for British Columbians interested in pursuing trades and technical careers.

This year's budget allocates a 16.2 percent, or $12.143 million, increase to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, government's body tasked with the revitalization of trades and technical training in British Columbia. More than $4.5 million of this funding will go directly toward the creation of 565 student spaces as well as apprenticeship opportunities, both dedicated to training the skilled tradespeople British Columbia needs.

Youth programs. The Ministry of Advanced Education is also the primary coordinating body for government's 11 youth employment programs. Two of these programs, Student Summer Works and Youth Community Action, are housed within my ministry. With a budget of $8.97 million Student Summer Works is expected to create more than 5,100 employment and training opportunities this year. With a budget of $4.5 million it is estimated that about 2,100 young people will participate in the Youth Community Action program this year.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, there are a lot of good things occurring in British Columbia's public post-secondary education and training system. Nevertheless, we have a huge challenge in meeting the changing educational and training needs of British Columbians. We've already taken key steps toward making the system more responsive to the needs of a changing society and an increasingly knowledge-based economy so that the students of today are trained and ready to take advantage of the opportunities of tomorrow.

The coming year will be critically important in putting in place the key building blocks for a more effective post-secondary education and training system, and it's a challenge that I look forward to. This is an exciting time for the public post-secondary sector, the ministry and for British Columbians as a whole. As the Minister of Advanced Education, I am honoured to be involved with these important changes.

J. Kwan: I have quite a number of questions for the minister, broad questions as well as specific questions. As the minister knows, advanced education and training are really one of the most important contributions that we could make to a strong, healthy economy in the future.

Over the past number of years B.C. has earned the reputation of being the education province. B.C.'s system of universities, colleges, university colleges and technical institutes has a tremendous reputation. Our universities consistently rank at or near the top of their ranking in the Maclean's survey, and our university transfer system is considered to be a model that is envied across Canada.

Looking back at the record, it is indeed important and I think impressive in terms of the advances that have been made around our educational system. More than 5,000 new spaces have been added to universities, colleges and institutes, and of course the plan is to double the apprenticeship and skills training spaces over the next four years to 50,000. Those are the things that contribute to the future of young people in British Columbia and of course to our economy down the road as well.

My first question to the minister is: I wonder if the minister could start by telling us what her vision is for B.C.'s advanced education system.

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely. We are excited about the possibilities that lie ahead of us. However, I need to remind you that there are significant challenges facing us in terms of access, the ability of students to get the space and courses they require. Our vision is to have the opportunity to increase opportunities for students. Most importantly, we want to concentrate on a quality post-secondary situation for students in this province. We intend to work very hard to look at the issues of access and funding institutions appropriately so that they are able to meet the needs of students within this province.

J. Kwan: Would the funding be directed to institutions only? Or would it be directed towards students with the tuition fee freeze, which was initiated by the previous government and has brought tuition fees to the second-lowest across Canada and is being continued by this government, which is most welcome? Are there any plans to reduce tuition fees if access is one of the priorities and a vision of this minister?

Hon. S. Bond: Our commitment is to honour the tuition freeze for the current academic year, and recently, through regulation, we have also committed to fully fund the 5 percent rollback. It is our intention to have consultations with students, educators and administrators to talk about the other costs that have been associated with the tuition freeze for a number of years. We believe that there are other things that are impacting both students and institutions as a result of the tuition freeze. So our commitment is to consult and make our decision based on the consultations that occur.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell me whether or not she believes that the tuition fee freeze has increased access to post-secondary education for young people in our community who might otherwise not afford to get into university or college?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, in our discussions we will be looking at all of the impacts of the tuition freeze. There is no specific information at this point that indicates that tuition is a significant enough factor to make those kinds of statements. We are committed to talking to students and institutions about the impact of the freeze. Perhaps the most significant commitment is that we intend to fully fund institutions for this current year so that we can ensure that access is maintained for students.

J. Kwan: Deriving from the minister's comments, am I then to understand that in access to post-secondary education the one critical component would be fully funding the tuition fee freeze, but on access to post-secondary education for young people she's uncertain whether or not reducing tuition would actually enable more access?

Hon. S. Bond: At this point, what I have said is that tuition fees are a factor in a student having the ability to attend an institution. We are suggesting that there are also other factors, including living expenses and other issues, that relate to the tuition fee issue. We believe tuition fees need to be reasonable. Within the next number of months we intend to discuss with students, administrators and educators the effect of the tuition fee reduction and freeze.

J. Kwan: The tuition fees in other jurisdictions. If you look at the European jurisdictions, where in some cases there is no tuition applicable for post-secondary education, we absolutely have seen an increase in terms of access, particularly for people who are low-income and who are faced with financial challenges and the like. I have a large family of eight, actually — five other siblings in the family. For my three older sisters post-secondary education was not an option because we come from a very low-income family. When I entered into post-secondary education, it was also daunting because of the fee issue and then, of course, inheriting a loan, which I finally paid off. Therefore, the question around affordability is a key one. Does the minister personally believe that reducing tuition fees would actually allow for and enable access?

Hon. S. Bond: Our government believes that tuition fees need to be reasonable. We also believe that it is one factor in a student's ability to access and attend post-secondary institutions. In that light, we intend to continue to discuss this issue with students and with institutions and administrators, to talk about the other costs that are affecting students as they attend post-secondary institutions.

J. Kwan: Does the minister believe in the concept of no tuition fees for post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that there need to be reasonable tuition fees for students to attend post-secondary institutions in this province.

J. Kwan: Does that mean that the minister does not believe in no tuition fees?

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that tuition fees need to be reasonable to allow and ensure access of opportunity. We also believe that we live within a certain fiscal reality. In order to provide an appropriate and expanded diversity of choice, there is a cost associated with that. We believe in reasonable tuition fees which do not hinder access, but we also believe there is a necessity to live within the fiscal reality we live in.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, to mean that the minister does not believe in no tuition fees, unless she gets up and disputes otherwise.

My next question then, relating to the review of the tuition fee freeze, is: what does the review look like, and what is the vision of this review from the minister's perspective?

Hon. S. Bond: We are in the process of developing a model of consultation. We hope to include various areas of the province. We are looking at various methods of gaining input and information, and we are developing that model at the moment. I am very excited about the kind of consultation that we will do, which will bring the information we need to make our decision.

Hon. S. Bond: Our commitment is to include students, educators and administrators. Having said that, we're also looking at the possibility of some sort of ability to access a website, to be able to give information to the broader public as well. Our commitment certainly is to speak to those partners who this most affects, which are administrators, educators and students.

J. Kwan: The list of people that the minister would be consulting with: would that be by invitation only?

Hon. S. Bond: At this point in time we have already had discussions about the tuition freeze situation in each of the stakeholder meetings that I have held with students, agencies and university presidents. I have already asked them to generally provide me with information and background for making this decision. We are in the process of developing the model. I look forward to moving the consultation out into the province and having the opportunity to meet with stakeholder groups in various regions.

J. Kwan: Could the minister provide the actual people on that list and their affiliations?

Hon. S. Bond: At this point, we're in the process of developing the model. We intend to be inclusive. We intend to look at the geographical nature of our province in addressing those concerns, and I continue to dialogue daily as I meet with my stakeholder groups and include them in this process.

J. Kwan: Could the minister provide the names of the stakeholder groups: who they are and their affiliations?

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to provide you with a list of the groups that I have already met with. I don't have that with me at the moment. I'd be happy to send that to you in writing. I should make it clear that each of these meetings was a half-hour in duration. It was an opportunity for me to share my vision of the ministry and to hear their concerns. One of the specific questions I asked them at each of those meetings was for their feedback about the tuition fee issue. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of those names and organizations.

Hon. S. Bond: It would be clearly articulated in our New Era document, which states very clearly that we intend to talk to the specific stakeholders that were named — educators, administrators and students — about the hidden costs that are associated with the ongoing tuition freeze.

J. Kwan: What would the minister consider to be positive signs of success of the freeze?

Hon. S. Bond: We are at this point in time assessing the whole success in terms of what the tuition freeze has done for students in British Columbia. At this point, while we may assume that the tuition freeze has been an advantage, there have also been challenges presented for students as a result of that in terms of additional wait times required because the institutions can't fully offer the kinds of things that are required. So my task and my commitment is to go out and ask those very questions that say: "While we have a tuition freeze on one hand, where there are implied benefits…." I'm certainly not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that the tuition freeze or the level of tuition isn't significant. What we're saying is that there may have been a cost associated with that. Our job is to discover what that is and do what's best for students in the long run.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any information right now within the ministry, a report of some sort, that may draw conclusions that the tuition fee freeze has caused degree completion times to increase or that such times have increased during the period of the freeze?

Hon. S. Bond: As a matter of fact, the reason we're beginning to have the consultation we're going to have is that there has been extreme concern expressed about the ability of institutions in this province to provide the kind of quality opportunities and accessibility that students require because of the lack of funding, first of all, from fully funding previous tuition freezes.

So in essence, do we have a report? No. But certainly at this point in time what we do have is information from my meetings, for example, that institutions have expressed their concern about their inability to continue to provide opportunities. So what we want to do is balance that information with the views and concerns of students, which we intend to do during the consultation process.

The Chair: I was just going to draw that to your attention. You have time for one more question, and then we will adjourn.

J. Kwan: In the past the government received a significant amount of correspondence on the tuition fee freeze, a large majority of them in support. There were student postcard campaigns and the like. Will the minister commit today to tallying and disclosing publicly the volume of correspondence that she will receive during the period of her review of the tuition fee freeze by those supporting the freeze and those opposing the freeze?

Hon. S. Bond: We are still in the process of designing the consultation process, but certainly I am going to look at the correspondence that's been received. Obviously, in order to be open and inclusive, we will keep a record of the result of the

correspondence sent to me. That is something that we would do in the course of any process we would set up. We would keep records. We would know exactly who'd written to us and what they had to say about that issue. That would simply be competent government.

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