Hansard -- Tuesday, April 30, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 15 (HTML)

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
		Page

Committee of the Whole House		3045
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond Hon. G. Collins Hon. C. Hansen Hon. J. Murray Hon. S. Santori Hon. G. Abbott

Reporting of Bills		3052
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11)

Third Reading of Bills		3052
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11)

Committee of the Whole House		3053
	Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg T. Christensen

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: This is the repeal of the Access to Education Act, which guaranteed the tuition fee freeze and, I believe, a reduction as well. During the estimates with the Minister of Advanced Education, I and my colleague explored the concept of post-secondary institutions being required to have bursaries for students who couldn't afford tuition. What's the progress on that? Of course, the repeal of this act leaves post-secondary students at risk of being priced out of the market of attending.

Hon. S. Bond: As we indicated in estimates, institutions are making decisions about what they will do with the tuition revenue. Many of them have indicated they will be providing student financial assistance. And of course, we will continue to have a student financial assistance program to help those students most in need. Many institutions, including UBC, are making decisions to add additional funding for student financial assistance.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have that information in terms of institution by institution. We can get the information for the member opposite for those institutions that have announced. Certainly, we will make that information available as it becomes public.

J. MacPhail: So is the government just taking a completely hands-off approach to allocation of resources by institution in order to ensure that at least some people whose parents can't afford the tuition can go to university or college?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, during estimates we made it clear that we have sent block funding to institutions around the province. They will make decisions about the programs. In terms of additional revenue from tuition, we have certainly seen that institutions are interested in what's in the best interests of students in this province. Institutions will make decisions about how to best meet the needs of the students in their particular institutions.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that was the mantra that the minister was giving during estimates. That was almost a month ago. Students are now graduating from high school having to make decisions about whether or not they can afford to go on to post-secondary education. It's a pretty crucial time. I was hoping that the minister might have had some more information for students who can't afford the tuition fee increases that every day grow more substantial. I was shocked at some of the college tuition fee increases that are at the very basic level, first and second year — shocking increases approaching 100 percent.

All right. Well, let me ask this. What is a grade 12 student to do to find out where bursaries are available? Is he or she supposed to check with each institution?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to point out, as we have continued to make clear, that despite the increases in tuition that have been contemplated by institutions, British Columbia will continue to have some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada. We also have an excellent student financial assistance program, and institutions are making decisions to provide additional funds.

Students will continue to look at opportunities for bursaries and student financial assistance in the same way that they have: using the student financial assistance website and also checking with the institutions where they plan to attend. In fact, students have done that, and they will continue to do it in that manner.

J. MacPhail: It would be nice if the minister would actually go to her own hometown and talk to the students there. I was talking to the students at the College of New Caledonia and the University of Northern British Columbia, and then I had the good fortune to meet with post-secondary students in Nelson. Every single one of the students said two things. "We're at risk of being able to continue to return to university because of the tuition hikes." And then they also said: "By the way, we can't find a summer job. All of the summer employment programs are gone." That was particularly true in the minister's hometown.

Let me just be clear: by the repeal of the Access to Education Act, we're back to the days where it's whatever the market foists on parents or students, no jobs — and oh, by the way, it's back to the old days where you have to suss out all the information yourself. Is that where we're at now? Is that the good news for people wanting to get post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: Students will be able to talk to institutions about the kinds of bursaries and scholarships

and apply for them in the ways that they have in the past. We continue to provide student financial assistance. We now have a website where students will be able to go and look for that information. Students will look for that information in the same ways they have in the past.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering: if the student has access to a website, why doesn't the minister have that information available for me today? Is it because it doesn't exist? Is it because the vast majority of institutions are not providing bursaries?

Hon. S. Bond: Students will be able to apply on line for student financial assistance from the province. In addition, they will be able to walk into or communicate with the institutions to get information about the kinds of additional resources that are available to them. They've done it in the past, and they will continue to do that today.

J. MacPhail: Well, here we are. The minister doesn't have one single piece of new information. I asked her during estimates whether she was trying to do herself out of a job, and clearly the repeal of this act and the lack of answers for people applying right now to go to college and university — hundreds of whom I met with over the course of the last ten days…. And this minister doesn't have any information.

This act guaranteed stability, predictability and affordability for tuition. Here are some of the increases in tuitions for UBC: 22 percent increase for undergraduate, 50 percent increase for commerce, 42 percent tuition increase for pharmaceutical science, 321 percent increase for MBA, 75 percent increase for medical school, 33 percent increase in tuition for education, 75 percent tuition increase for dentistry, 65 percent increase for law — actually, that I approve of — and 41 percent increase in tuition for architecture. There we are. I'm sorry, my apologies. Law has a perfectly good, legitimate role in our society. That's what people are now faced with in tuition increases.

The minister said a month ago: "But gee, we're really hoping that the colleges and universities will set up bursary programs." She can't name any. Oh, UBC. In fact, UBC hasn't worked out those details yet.

UVic, across the board, a 30 percent tuition increase for all students. Graduate students as of May 1, tomorrow, will have to cough up $826 more. Undergraduate students, as of tomorrow, will have to cough up $644 more for tuition. Perhaps the minister can tell me where a student on the website can track down the bursaries available at UVic.

Hon. S. Bond: I will once again answer the question. The fact is that students will continue to look for the financial assistance opportunities that are provided to them in the same way that they did last year. In fact, they would contact the University of Victoria or the other institutions they're considering attending and get information about student financial assistance that would be in addition to the government's.

J. MacPhail: Tomorrow a student at UVic who's at graduate school has to come up with $826 more. It's not the same as last year. It's not the same as the past. By repealing this legislation, this government has foisted dramatic increased costs on students wishing to attend post-secondary education.

I don't know how the minister can somehow suggest that things haven't changed. If she were out talking to her constituents, she would know how dramatically this is affecting people with access to post-secondary education. It's unbelievably dramatic, and the number of people who are deciding right now whether it is within their economic realm to continue their post-secondary education is growing by leaps and bounds.

Today, with the repeal of the legislation that guaranteed access, this minister stands up and says: "It's up to the students, just the same way as in the past, to find out…."

The Chair: Member, I'd just ask you to tone down the inflection in your voice.

The Chair: It's sort of degrading and really non-parliamentary. Carry on with your questioning, but please be cautious on the tone.

J. MacPhail: Isn't this interesting? Well, certainly I'm always interested in the new rules of procedure that develop in this House.

The Chair: Member, I don't think we as members mock the other members. This is what you're implying. Please carry on with your debate.

J. MacPhail: Certainly. I understand the great sensitivities of the government these days. I understand the pressure that they're under from the great protest amongst the communities — absolutely.

Let me carry on, then. The minister says — and I'm just repeating exactly what the minister says — that students can go and find out on the website what is available for them. Well, I'm asking the minister: what's available for students on the website who now have to pay $826 more as of tomorrow? What extra resources are available? It's not the same as last year.

Hon. S. Bond: Students will actually be able to go to the student financial assistance website. They will be able to apply on line for the kind of assistance the government is providing, and students will also be able to — as they have in the past — go to institutions and look at the programs of bursaries and scholarships that are available. Students have done it in the past. They will do it in the future.

We are certainly indicating that the process is the same. We recognize that tuition fees will be different, and having said that, we will continue in British Columbia to be able to look at some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada despite the recent increases.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, that's not washing, Mr. Chair. It's absolutely not washing. The minister knows full well that British Columbia over the next three years is skyrocketing towards the top for tuition fees in Canada. The minister tries to suggest somehow that this year makes it still amongst the lowest.

Well, once again this government comes in, repeals legislation that increased access in an affordable way to post-secondary education, and the minister doesn't have one answer for parents and students who are deciding right now whether they can afford to go to a post-secondary institution. It's shameful.

Now that she's repealed this section, can the minister say what additional funding, specifically for funding student spaces, the minister has allocated as she repeals this legislated guarantee?

Hon. S. Bond: We have sent to institutions this year more funding than they received last year. Each institution received a lift. We have sent that money in terms of block funding. We are looking at specific increases in areas — in particular, in high-tech seats and also health care. We will be looking at a general increase in the number of seats. Each institution did receive a lift in the funding. We sent it through in block funding. They are going to work hard to increase access for students in this province.

J. MacPhail: Every institution in the province has said they don't have enough money to fund the increase in seats — every single institution. Has the minister provided, in the block funding, any money for increased overall seats — increasing the number that were in place as of April 1, 2001, and the number of seats that are in place right now? Has the minister provided any funding for that?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, do you want to tell the House Leader about proper behaviour?

The Chair: Member, I'll just remind you that I don't need your input to the Chair.

Hon. S. Bond: We have sent to institutions in block funding $32 million more across the sector. We have given as much autonomy as possible for institutions to make decisions that meet the best needs of their students. Each institution got an increase in the number of dollars than they got last year. They are working hard. We anticipate growth in the sector. We have given institutions the autonomy to make the decisions necessary to increase student access.

J. MacPhail: The minister is repealing a guaranteed funding for 5,000 additional seats in post-secondary institutions. What is she replacing it with, specifically? The $32 million doesn't even pay for increased MSP premiums and increased wages for one year.

Hon. S. Bond: Section 7 is a one-year…. What we're repealing was particularly a focus for one fiscal year. I will say it one more time: we have sent more money to institutions. We have looked at detargeting some of the programs so that institutions can make decisions about priorities for them. We are looking at increased access in the province. We sent more money. We know that institutions will think very carefully about the priorities for their students.

J. MacPhail: I wonder how the minister is feeling about all of this, her mantra, when institutions are cutting programs across the province. How does the minister think it's going — her block funding for post-secondary institutions? How does she think it's going for increasing access to education?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the important part of the process is that institutions are looking at the important priority programs for their students in their institutions. You know this government protected funding for post-secondary education at a time when that is a very challenging thing for us to have done. I continue to be very proud of that fact. While institutions make challenging decisions, they are focusing on what's best for students.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm so glad the minister is proud of her record. Perhaps she should actually visit some secondary institutions where students now have worked as hard as they could possibly work to graduate from grade 12 with outstanding results and can't afford to go to university or college. That's exactly what's happening now. That's happening across this province, and the minister has the gall to stand up and say she's proud of her record.

Let me ask this of the minister: what grade 12 classes has she spoken to within the last month?

Hon. S. Bond: I can candidly say I haven't spoken to grade 12 classes, but I have had the pleasure of visiting almost half of the campuses of the institutions in this province. To be honest with you, people were incredibly appreciative of the fact that a Minister of Education actually took the time to visit those institutions and get a firsthand sense of what students are doing in this province. In fact, I will remain proud of the fact that this is a government that made post-secondary education a priority in its budget and a priority in the agenda that we have in this province.

J. MacPhail: It's embarrassing to hear this minister stand up and say that. It is embarrassing for her to continue the mantra when program after program is being cut; when Vancouver Community College — which can't raise their tuition the way this government would like to foist upon families, because they target low-income students and adult students returning after losing jobs — can't afford to raise their tuition, so they're cutting programs; when institutions across this province are cutting adult basic education programs because they can't raise tuition on their programs. That's what's embarrassing.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 5 on the order paper. Perhaps I can speak to it and just inform the members what it is. It merely changes the time line in the act, which is 90 days, to 120 days. The 90 days would have expired on April 27, 2002. This extends it for an additional 30 days.

J. MacPhail: I assume the House Leader is answering these questions. Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section?

Hon. G. Collins: Bill 29 amended the Health Authorities Act to restore separate bargaining units for the community health and health facilities support workers. The member may remember that legislation. In order to give effect to the restoration of separate bargaining units, Bill 29 directs the LRB to restore the articles of association for the separate bargaining units that were in place immediately prior to the consolidation of the two bargaining units. However, Bill 29 refers to the wrong LRB decision, and it was considered necessary to correct this reference through this miscellaneous amendment.

J. MacPhail: That corrects the reference to the LRB decision, but the section here also extends a time period of 30 days to 90 days. Now I understand the minister is extending that to 120 days. What is that time period for?

Hon. G. Collins: My understanding is that the LRB is required to make the appropriate reference to the decision. This was 90 days in the act at the time. This takes it to 120 days. It gives them an additional 30 days to do that work.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps. But I'm asking the minister what the work is that they're supposed to be doing.

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, the work that has to be done within the time frame is to reinstate the original set bargaining units as was set out in that particular LRB decision.

J. MacPhail: Bill 29 was passed at the end of January, as I recall. It was rammed through in a late-night sitting here. We've had February, March, April, and now the government needs another 30 days. What are the complications?

Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment is to provide the time frame in which the typographical error gets cor-

rected. The correction that's in Bill 11 is to change…. Instead of reading 573, it should have read B73. The time frame that was provided in the original act was 30 days. In order to provide for that correction with the corrected reference to the LRB decision, we have to make sure that it's within the 120-day framework, so that's what the amendment to this provision before us is for.

J. MacPhail: Okay, we've got lots of time here. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to explain exactly what that means. What are the practical realities of what the minister is doing? A correction referring to a decision that's on the books should be instantaneous. There must be something that flows from this correction that requires a longer period of time. What I'm trying to understand is what flows that requires an extra 30 days.

Hon. C. Hansen: The original provision in Bill 29 was to allow for this redefinition of the bargaining units within 30 days. When they realized that there was a typographical error in Bill 29, they then brought in the amendment in Bill 11 as part of Miscellaneous Statutes, which is an appropriate use of Miscellaneous Statutes. It then provided to extend it from 30 days to 90 days. Well, the challenge that we now have, because of the time it's taken to get Bill 11 before the chamber, is to extend that a little bit further in order to give the time frame for the HEABC to implement this provision with the Labour Relations Board.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Then my original question still stands: what's taking so long? Is this retroactive then? Last me ask this: has the work been done, and is this just retroactive confirmation?

Hon. C. Hansen: The bargaining units as they were defined prior to the introduction of Bill 23 in the spring of year 2001, a year ago…. That was the bill that was brought in by the previous government to force the amalgamation of the two bargaining units — the facility sector and the community sector. What Bill 29 did was go back to the previous definitions of the bargaining units that had been put in place prior to Bill 23 of that session being brought in. In the reference in Bill 29 it mistakenly referred to that Labour Relations Board ruling as 573/98, which was the year that it was brought in, and it should in fact have been B73/98.

In Bill 11, the miscellaneous statutes bill that's before us now, section 5 corrects the mistake and, instead of the 30 days in Bill 29, provides for 90 days for that to be implemented. Given the time it's taken for Bill 11 to be dealt with in this chamber, we now have to extend it a little bit further to provide the 120 days for that change to be implemented.

J. MacPhail: All right. Let me try it this way. How's it going in separating the bargaining units?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, the LRB does not have the ability to deal with that until such time as the legislation is corrected, and that's what's before us today. Once this is corrected, the actions will be taken with the LRB to ensure that the facilities and the community bargaining tables are re-established as provided for in 1998.

J. MacPhail: Am I correct in assuming that no work has been done? I'm going to assert that no work has been done to separate the bargaining units.

Has the minister given any thought to the consequences of separating bargaining units? With massive layoffs of health care workers and the requirement of government for needing health care workers in other areas, has the minister had any second thoughts that perhaps it isn't such a wise move to separate the bargaining units?

Hon. C. Hansen: I seek some direction from the Chair, because I think the member's question goes far beyond the scope of the amendment and section 5 that's before us today. I'd be pleased to have that discussion with her, but I don't believe this is the appropriate opportunity.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm raising it, Mr. Chair, is because the amendment, Bill 11, was tabled before the massive announcements of radical restructuring of health care.

I'm merely asking the minister whether, subsequent to the tabling of this legislation and now his assertion that even though there will be massive layoffs of nurses in one area, other areas will need nursing and that those areas may be between the community bargaining unit and the facilities bargaining unit…. I'm wondering whether the minister has given consideration to that. By the re-establishment of two bargaining units, the ability to transfer employees will be severely impeded. That's all I'm asking — whether there's been any consideration of that subsequent to this legislation being introduced.

Hon. C. Hansen: The ability to move employees was there prior to Bill 29 being introduced. Certainly, lots of consideration was given to that fact at the time. At the time Bill 23 was brought in, in the spring of 2000, we reviewed some of those issues. We believe that this is in the best interest of necessary public policy. There is nothing that has changed subsequent to Bill 29 that would cause us to think differently.

J. MacPhail: I beg to differ with the minister. Perhaps the proof will be in the pudding as we go through this radical restructuring of moving people — laying off people in acute care facilities and then expecting them to give up all of their seniority, all of the benefits that they've gained in the collective agreement and all of the training they've gained and then moving them to another institution that is perhaps covered by a separate agreement and a separate bargaining unit.

It makes much greater sense, if indeed this government has any hope of having this restructuring work, for there to be a common structure amongst which health care workers, nurses, care aides, LPNs and technologists can establish the proper way to be trained and to be assigned for work.

J. MacPhail: This section has done away with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. That has been quite a shock to the apprenticeship community and the technical trades community. What are the minister's actions on dealing with anybody to promote apprenticeship?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly had a lengthy discussion about this in estimates with the member opposite. What we have done is preserved the training dollars — almost $70 million — for skills and trades training in the province of British Columbia. We currently have a transition advisory council in place which is composed of members of labour, industry and education. They are working at looking at a new model of delivering training in the province that is responsive, flexible and will help us address the skills issues that will face the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, what's happening? Maybe I can have some specifics. Who are these people? What parts of the industry do they represent? What's the composition of people who will be deciding these issues? Are they business people like the government has appointed to virtually every other board in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: The industry training transition advisory committee is composed of a number of representatives. We have Michael Coughlin, the executive vice-president of Cascade Aerospace; Allan Cullen, the president of Detroit Diesel-Allison in British Columbia; Rod Goy, the training director of the electrical construction industry joint training committee; Philip Hochstein, executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors; Phillip Legg, the policy director of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Tony Knowles, the president of the B.C. Institute of Technology, Murray MacLeay, the president of the B. C. Construction Association; Janet Marwick, the executive director of the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association of B.C.; and Jim Utley, the vice-president of human resources, Teck Cominco.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let me see. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven employers, one labour representative and one academic. Am I correct on that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, Rod Goy is the training director of the electrical construction industry joint training committee and represents labour as well, and there is one educator.

J. MacPhail: But he is from the employer side of that body. Here we have — this is a real step forward once again for British Columbia — a skill shortage that is taking on a crisis proportion. This government wiped out the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, which was world-class and a model for apprenticeship training in other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions were looking toward this model because it was balanced. It had the ability to spend money. It was independent, and it was moving forward. Now that's been wiped out, and the good news is we've got a board that has seven employer reps, one academic and one labour representative.

Tell me: how's it going? Let me ask this question on an update. What is the work of the new transition board now? What is their business plan?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm just pleased to let the member opposite know that the transition advisory committee met last week. They will be meeting every three weeks. They are developing models and suggestions for how training will be more responsive so that, in fact, we can put a plan in place that would deal with what is considered to be a looming shortage of skilled workers in this province. They are doing a great job, and they are going to create opportunities not only for employers but also for students in this province to look at viable alternatives to non-university pathways in the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will help people at the College of the Rockies where mechanics tuition increased by 100 percent. That'll help a lot.

Tell me. The ITAC had a business that was balanced and by the year 2005 would have doubled the number of tradespeople in the province to 50,000. What's the transition board's plan to just maintain that status quo?

Hon. S. Bond: The transition advisory committee has met once. There's been a lot of background work done in terms of the needs of the province. They're working on a plan that will actually look at how over the next number of years we're going to put in place a long-term strategy for dealing with those issues. There is incredible interest in this in all the sectors, as a matter of fact. We're having people say: "We want to be a part of looking at what we're going to do in this province in a new way." So there's excitement. There's progress. They've met. They're meeting again in two weeks with a set of suggestions on what the new model might look like.

J. MacPhail: What's the plan? Am I to understand that the board met…? Did the minister say a few weeks ago? So we've lost a year. Here we have a former

commission that had a business plan, a workable, agreed-upon plan for 50,000 trained tradespeople by the year 2005, and now we're starting from scratch. Is that what we're supposed to take from this?

Hon. S. Bond: We are going to build on the complement of 16,000 apprentices that are currently in the system. We are going to look at the entry-level trades training program and how we might make that more responsive. We are obviously looking at the work that's been done by ITAC, by industry and by individual businesses that train people in this province. We have a great foundation for the work we're going to do. The transition advisory committee met. We'll be bringing back more recommendations within the next two weeks.

J. MacPhail: ITAC had representation from the K-to-12 system. Has the minister had a chance to read the chamber of commerce's report on skills shortage issued last week?

Hon. S. Bond: As a matter fact, let's just see. Is it called Closing the Skills Gap? Yes, actually, I have read it. We're working on what steps we might look at in terms of working with the chamber of commerce. The interesting part of this report, which talks about the apprenticeship model in British Columbia, is that, lo and behold, they think we actually need to revise it and look at a new way of doing it. So, in fact, the report does…. I was actually encouraged by the fact that industry has said it's not just government's responsibility to take care of skills and trades training; they want to be partners with us and are quite encouraging in terms of the direction we're taking.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and in fact ITAC was independent of government. The chamber of commerce says that there has to be a balanced approach, a completely integrated approach, not a bunch of employers telling everybody else what to do. It is such a model of this government that they listen to one voice — one voice — and ignore everybody else who has an opinion on anything about what might be best for the future. They go directly to employers, most of them huge donors to their campaigns. Phil Hochstein is the largest donor to the Liberal government — the largest donor. And there he is. We've now got the fox in charge of the henhouse. Isn't that good news for a skills shortage? Not one person on the board from K-to-12 — not one.

What is the workplan of the new transition board to get younger people, who now can't afford to actually go to post-secondary institutions? What's the plan of the transition board to work with the K-to-12 section?

Hon. S. Bond: As far as I'm aware — and certainly from our perspective, K-to-12 was not represented on the ITAC commission — what the chamber of commerce and others are saying to us in terms of K-to-12 is that we need to work together to look at a cultural shift in the province, that it isn't the province's responsibility all by itself. In fact, we're going to work with industry, labour and education to try to say that being a skilled and trained worker in British Columbia is important, is necessary, and we're going to help you do that.

J. MacPhail: Actually, ITAC worked very closely with the K-to-12 sector and had representation on it. It's interesting how the corporate memory is fading so much here.

Let me ask this: what's the government's plan for dealing with the skills shortage in terms of their participation? If the transition board will take this long, what's the government's plan? Will it be all of the transition board's responsibility to deal with the skills shortage?

Hon. S. Bond: We will obviously be represented on the industry training advisory commission. We have sent block funding to institutions to continue to support skills and trades training. We are going to take an aggressive and very proactive approach to training in this province.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the consequences of removing these three marine parks from schedule C?

Hon. J. Murray: This amendment has to do with the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy agreement with the federal government in which some areas that were a provincial park are being removed from park status so they can be transferred to a federal park under that agreement.

J. MacPhail: What's the piece of federal legislation that guarantees its existence?

J. MacPhail: Does that piece of federal legislation have a schedule that designates parks by name?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes it does, and they will make amendments once the transfer takes place.

J. MacPhail: Does the transfer carry the same names, or are the three marine parks being renamed?

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government hasn't made that decision yet — whether they'll have an umbrella name for the collection of lands and marine and parks or whether they'll maintain individual names.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware whether there'll be any public consultation on that?

Hon. J. Murray: There's been extensive consultation on this agreement — a series of meetings in and around the Gulf Islands — so that there has been consultation on the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy.

Secondly, the federal government has said it will honour local names as they proceed.

J. MacPhail: This is to do with the benefits of deputy ministers appointed on or after September 1, 2001. What are the consequences of this amendment?

Hon. S. Santori: The amendment is to put the deputy ministers who came on board after September 1 consistent with the pension provision of all other employees in the public service — from 1½ times of accumulated pension time to a 1 to 1.

J. MacPhail: So now deputy ministers who have joined the government after September 2001 get year-for-year, month-for-month earnings, instead of 1½ months for a month?

J. MacPhail: What consultation was done between the city of Vancouver and the Municipal Finance Authority around this change?

Hon. G. Abbott: The consultation with respect to this has been extensive and, in fact, goes back some years. It is very strongly supported by the city of Vancouver and the Municipal Finance Authority.

The Chair: Before we proceed, I just want to be clear that it was section 16 through section 22 that had passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing on the order paper to section 39, which adds a subsection (4).

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 2 redefines the circumstances in which a child would need protection. The previous act states that if a person believes that a child has been or is likely to be harmed by the child's parent or another person in contact with the child, then that child should be reported to the child protection social worker. The rewording of this section would require a person, as the minister advised during the second reading stage, to report abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of the child's parents or guardian.

I think the major change is in the case where there is proof of abuse or neglect. In that instance, then the reporting is done, and only in that instance an investigation would take place. Is that the intent of the legislation?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member is partially correct. It also provides further clarification inasmuch as section 13 is when the ministry can respond to orders and delineates the direction and focus by which we can respond. There is currently an inconsistency between section 14(1), which is being repealed, and the provisions which allow action to take place under section 13. It is intended to bring those into consistency so that the actions taken are consistent with what is being reported.

J. Kwan: Yes, I see in the explanatory notes that it bridges the inconsistency that the minister has mentioned.

I'm reading from second reading stage comments from the minister. Maybe the minister can explain to me what the onus of proof is then, with this change, for people to report a child who is faced with abuse and neglect. The comments from the minister are as follows:

This is the comment. I'm particularly interested in understanding what is the onus of proof for a person to report abuse or neglect. Before, if you believed that there was an issue you should report it, but now the minister is saying that it was too onerous and that the child protection director did not have the mandate to intervene. I would assume that one would require some level of proof of abuse or neglect before they could report. At what level would that be required?

I worry that…. I'll see what the minister's answer is on the issue around onus of proof.

Hon. G. Hogg: The test is the same. Previously, however, there was a requirement for reporting anytime there was an assumption or belief of any abuse or neglect and that may exist independent of the parents or guardians. It is now focused on abuse and neglect coming from parents and/or guardians who have responsibility for the safekeeping and care of the child. So it's now narrowed to focus on them rather than what might happen in a school yard. If a child is abused in a school yard in a bullying or a fighting circumstance, that will now be dealt with by the police and the school. The test is exactly the same but now focused more specifically on those who have direct responsibility for custody and parenting.

T. Christensen: At the risk of being perhaps a bit repetitive in terms of the questions asked by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I do want to seek some additional clarification. As I see it, sections 13 and 14 in the Child, Family and Community Service Act are, in effect, the purpose sections of the bill. Certainly, as the public sees this legislation as child protection legislation, sections 13 and 14 go right to the heart of that issue.

As I read the legislation, section 13 sets out the circumstances in which protection is needed, and then section 14 reflects the societal obligation to report circumstances in which child protection is needed. Perhaps the minister could briefly and simply state why the mandatory reporting provision is being changed. What necessitated this change?

Hon. G. Hogg: The mandatory reporting provision is being changed to clarify what should be reported to child protection social workers for both assessment and investigation. The current wording causes some confusion, because it extends beyond the protection mandate of the ministry. It causes confusion inasmuch as the actions which may be implied are not simply implied with respect to the issue of protection, which is the mandate of the ministry, as is reflected in section 13.

T. Christensen: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Based on the minister's answers, I understand

then that section 13 essentially sets out where the ministry can get involved. Currently, if there's a report, for example, of a school-yard bullying incident where one child is being threatened with physical harm by perhaps a bigger child in the school yard, if that gets reported to the ministry, the ministry has no legislative mandate or ability to get involved. Yet section 14, as it's currently worded in the act, would actually require somebody to report it to the ministry. Yet the ministry can't do anything about it?

Hon. G. Hogg: That's basically correct. I guess the expansion of that might be that if a child was being bullied as the member points out and the parent chooses not to do anything about it or is unable to do something about it, then it may be an issue of protection that would fall back into that. That's the only area in which section 13 would imply some responsibility on the parent.

T. Christensen: That does provide some clarification. I take it that in that latter situation, where a parent essentially refuses to try and deal with it, it becomes more an issue of neglect, which then falls within section 13.

In terms of section 14, I know there is certainly some history to this legislation, given child protection concerns and the history of concerns in this province. It's my understanding that section 14, and the wording of section 14(1) in particular, essentially resulted from a recommendation arising from the Gove inquiry. Can the minister confirm that or comment on that?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member is correct. It is something which arose as a result of Judge Gove and Judge Gove's concerns on issues around it. There were amendments in 1995 that did broaden the expectation. The expectation was that social workers would get involved in almost anything and try and make some judgments with respect to how to best discern what the appropriate course of action might be and how to resolve that. Unfortunately, it also brought into the purview of social workers a number of things which we didn't have the authority to respond to and to act on. This allows us to focus more appropriately on those decisions that focus on the protection mandate and reduces the expectation, which was that the ministry could do and be almost anything to everyone.

As was pointed out earlier, our focus with respect to the areas we can respond to was being broadened by that expectation, and false expectations were being set up. This focuses more directly on the responsibilities that exist in section 13. It allows our ministry and its protection mandate to be focused on that area rather than the broad circulating issues that might be focusing around there and which the community had expectations that we could respond to, which in fact were not reflected in our direct mandate nor our ability to respond.

T. Christensen: In making this change, does the minister anticipate any danger to children and youth in essentially narrowing the obligation to report, or does this really simply bring the reporting obligation in line with what is currently ministry practice?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly the latter. I think it more consistent with the practice. The amendment does not narrow the mandate of child protection social workers, nor does it leave children and youth under the ministry without a protection mandate. The amendment, I believe, simply clarifies public expectations with respect to the ministry's involvement in child welfare matters so that the public will be clear, or clearer, about what situations the ministry may intervene in, and it reduces the costs related to child protection resources spent on those situations that are not within the purview of the direct mandates. This change is also consistent with child welfare legislations as they exist in other provinces across Canada.

J. Kwan: In section 5, which refers to section 19 of the act, the director is given the ability to investigate the situation and remove the child from that situation. However, if you look at the act, this section also references section 63, which discusses who is a suitable custodian for the child. Is it right to assume this amendment means that a warrant is used not only for removing a child from a potentially dangerous situation but also for selecting a new custodian for the child?

Hon. G. Hogg: No, it does not allow us to make those moves in terms of placing it in the custody of someone else. It simply allows for a protection worker, a social worker, to contact the judge by phone to seek enforcement of an order which has previously been made by the courts. It's an enforcement provision that allows for the enforcement of previously court-ordered provisions.

J. Kwan: The current legislation only allows for the child to be placed with the custody of the director or the parent and does not allow for a person other than a parent to have custody of the child. This section, I think, changes that.

My first question to the minister is: who is a suitable person to take custody of a child?

Hon. G. Hogg: The test would be basically the same test that would be applied in the placement of any other home. This is at the presentation hearing. Currently, the legislation requires that the presentation hearing only gives the judge the option of placing the child in the care of the state or back into their parental home. This broadens the provisions which the courts

will have available to them at the presentation hearing stage and allows them to look at extended family, people who may have a bond with the child, so that the placement can be made in the best interest of the child. But the tests being applied to that would be the same that would be applied in the placement.

If at the presentation hearing the courts make a determination that they're going to bring the child into the temporary care of the state, then for the placement into a home the same tests would be applied in those circumstances as in broadening the circumstances to allow an extended family or a person who has a bond, an affiliation with or affection for the child. The principle driving all that still has to be what's in the best interests of the child. How can a safe place and provision be provided? Can we do that in the experience where a child may have contact with somebody and therefore feel more comfortable about a move which may be very traumatic in terms of the life of the child and their family?

J. Kwan: Does it allow for input from the child's parents at this stage of determination?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it does. At the presentation hearing the parents would be present and certainly would have access to and the opportunity to speak to the courts with respect to any decisions being made at that point in time.

J. Kwan: Is there any requirement that the person who the child would be placed with actually has knowledge of or knows the child beforehand? Could the child be placed with a complete stranger?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is an expectation, clearly, that the child would know and have some contact with a person being proposed by the director. It is the courts, however, that make the decisions, and there may well be some other people who are presenting at the presentation hearing other than the director who may be providing a name. It may be the parents who are suggesting: "Here is someone who we think is appropriate for the placement of the child at this point in time." That decision in those cases would be made by the courts.

The person being put forward by the director would be someone who has a significant role with the child. It could be family friends who step forward and agree that they want to be the custodial caregiver while the director works with the parents to improve matters or whatever the circumstances or issues may be.

I guess, in specific response to the member's question, if somebody in the courts or if the parents provided a name of somebody that the child did not have previous contact with, then certainly we would want to have the opportunity to check that out and make sure it was an appropriate placement. We would not be supporting a placement with someone that we knew nothing about or that they didn't have any contact with. Ultimately, this is a provision which provides the courts to be able to make decisions. We're setting the principles out within the legislation which the courts should reference in making those decisions. Those are in the best interests of the child, and continuity of care is an important part of that process.

J. Kwan: If the intent of the legislation is to ensure that where the custody of the child could be afforded to a person outside of the parent, and it could be a family friend or relative — however, the condition is such that the child must have prior knowledge and relationship with such an individual — how come the legislation doesn't explicitly say that?

Hon. G. Hogg: The belief is that that can best be covered with respect to this matter within policy, that the legislation lays out the specifics, but the policy will lay out the manner in which that might be achieved. The member made specific reference to if it's somebody that the child may not have contact with or may not know. As an example, it may be an aboriginal community, or it may be many different cultures who have different parenting practices and the utilization in many cultures of extended families, which is a far better practice than we tend to practise in our society today. It may be that it's someone that an aboriginal community or a band may be recommending, and the band may be supporting the placement of an aboriginal child within the context of an extended family or an elder or someone within the community that may not have had a lot of contact with the community. In those instances we would want to be able to say to the courts, or the courts would want to be able to make a decision in their best interest….

Those can best be covered in policy, because there is a myriad of options and possibilities that exist. The principle that is reflected in the legislation is the best interests of the child and giving the courts the opportunity to expand the options that they currently have, which I said earlier are limited to just apprehending the child or returning the child to their current parental circumstance or situation.

We want to be able to broaden that second option so the courts could utilize extended family, friends or other people that may exist within the context of the constellation of that child and therefore give them another option to be able to find and develop a safe care plan at the presentation hearing. The protection hearing, which is held sometime subsequent to that to make a definitive determination, will be based on the information from the presentation hearing and the direction.

We don't want to disrupt a child any more than necessary at that very traumatic time in their lives and in the lives of the family. If we can find a group, an extended family, someone they have contact with or somebody that the culture or the neighbourhood may be supporting, then that is the least traumatic and most effective way of providing a transition and some continuity for the child and allowing the ministry to work to try and deal with whatever the issues may be and

hopefully being able to reunite the nuclear family in a way that will allow them to provide the care which they can best and most appropriately provide in most circumstances and situations.

J. Kwan: This section relates to section 12, the amendment of the act, which refers to section 42.1. If the idea is that it would allow for a child to be referred to an individual, whether it be a family friend, a relative or someone in the community as the minister suggested, who could possibly care for the child….

We're talking about section 8 right now, but it's related to section 12 as well, because section 12 talks about making a change to section 42.1 of the act by striking out the words "was caring for the child" and substituting "had custody of the child." There's a relationship here I'm trying to draw.

This section we're talking about now allows for the entitlement of custody to different individuals. The previous act allowed for someone who is caring for the child but not necessarily entitled to custody to actually care for that child for an interim period. In theory the two concepts already exist. When the child is not returned to the parent, it could be cared for by someone whom the courts deem to be appropriate, whether it be a family friend, a relative and so on.

Given that the range of care for a child who may be leaving the parent for protection purposes already exists, is the key issue centred around custody? It seems to me that the big change is the entitlement to custody.

Hon. G. Hogg: When we get to section 12 we can deal with that more specifically. At this point the courts do not have an option in their provisions. The options that the member is referring to are options which are created by the ministry if the child is taken into temporary care. Those are the options that exist. We want to provide for more options to the courts to make decisions and give a freer and more open hearing in which parents can make suggestions as to where the child should go.

Currently, if a judge makes a determination at the presentation hearing that the child is going to come into temporary care, then it's the ministry that makes that placement. The ministry has a range of options which the member has alluded to. If the courts are able to make the determination, then the parents, extended family and other interested parties may make submissions to the court, saying: "We believe this is where the child should go. We believe that it is in the best interest of the child to be with this person." The courts could then make that determination.

Today they don't have control over that determination. They have two options. Often, if they choose the option to take the child into temporary care, the ministry would then be making those decisions and in many cases making exactly the type of decisions which may well be made by the court should this provision pass. We're giving that option to the courts rather than making it an administrative issue.

J. Kwan: Currently, child protection workers and social workers within the ministry already have the right to place a child, on an interim basis, with a family friend, a relative or someone who the worker deems to be appropriate to care for the child. I would assume that the worker already tries to place the child in the home of a relative. In terms of options to place the child, it doesn't really broaden them from the worker's perspective.

When that happens from the ministry side, it is my understanding that the child remains in the legal custody of the province. The province is then responsible for financially supporting that child. Does this change mean that the custody is transferred to the relative, friend or community member who the court may deem would act in the best interests of the child and be appropriate to care for the child? And does it mean that the cost of caring for that child would be shifted from the province to the person who would have custody?

Hon. G. Hogg: I think I heard about three questions in that. I'll try and see if I can discern them.

Firstly, one of the shifts is that we believe parents, extended family and people who know the children best should be involved in that decision-making process and be a part of it.

As to those movements that the member has referred to in terms of the placement of a child taking place, the ministry will still provide maintenance for them as those changes take place.

I think the member's opening comments in the last question referred to a court circumstance and the range of options that are available. I remember sitting in court a number of times, and the issue at this point in time is often the uncertainty that exists for a family as they go into court. If the judge makes a determination that the child is going to come into temporary custody, there's a certain amount of angst and clearly a lot of uncertainty as to the placement that the child may be moving into subsequent to that, when the family leaves that courtroom and the child remains. There's much more transparency, openness and certainty that exist for a family if, at that pivotal point in the courtroom when everyone is anxious, the judge is able to say, "Your child is now going to be placed with an uncle or with an extended family," and provide that certainty right at that point when things are at that pivotal emotional moment. It helps to allay some of the concerns and emotions that are so high within the courtroom at that point in time with respect to those types of placements.

I think those were the three parts to the question that I heard from the member.

J. Kwan: The minister advises that it is the intent of the province to continue to pay for the support of the child under this section of the act. In the case where the individual is on income assistance and it is determined that this individual, who happens to be a relative of the child, would then have custody of the child, under the

changes with the Human Resources minister's Bill 26 the relative who then takes custody of the child will no longer qualify for income assistance for the child. They're expected to pay for the care of that child. There seems to be a contradiction. Does this act actually override the other one — that is to say that the ministry will actually pay for the care of the child by this individual?

Hon. G. Hogg: Section 25 of the amendment act provides for the ability of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide for maintenance of those children in need. That is distinct and separate from the issues contained in the Ministry of Human Resource's action around children in the home of a relative.

J. Kwan: I just want to be absolutely clear on this, because I was under the impression that if a child went into the home of a relative, that individual would have to pay for the care of the child unless the entire family unit is on income assistance. If that entire family is not on income assistance and doesn't qualify for income assistance, when they have a child placed in the home of a relative, that child's costs in terms of caring for the child would have to be paid for by that relative. You're saying that's not correct. The province would actually pay for the care of that child.

Hon. G. Hogg: The ministry has the option under its legislation to make payments in those circumstances, so, yes, we have that option available to us. It's not automatic. If a child is placed in a family which is extremely wealthy and very capable of doing that, then it's not good use of the state's dollars to be making claimants in those instances. Certainly, if there are issues of concern with respect to the maintenance and ability of the family for economic reasons to be able to be the appropriate placement, the ministry has the capacity and the ability to provide maintenance payments in those circumstances.

J. Kwan: What are the criteria for determination of eligibility for support from the ministry then?

Hon. G. Hogg: Those assessments are made individually. There isn't an assessment that's made under MHR eligibility criteria. Those are assessments that are made on an individual basis based on the best interests and needs of the child and the family's capacity to deal with the issues of the child.

J. Kwan: So the assessment for eligibility is done by the Ministry of Human Resources, not by this ministry?

Hon. G. Hogg: No. The assessment is done by our ministry, by a social worker who would meet with the family and make a determination with respect to the family's capacity given all of the circumstances that may be contained within the constellation of that family — to be able to determine their ability to maintain and support another child within their home. Whatever maintenance needs were determined by the social worker would be the factors which would determine the amount of maintenance provided.

J. Kwan: Is there an income threshold that the ministry uses to determine eligibility? If so, what is it?

Hon. G. Hogg: No. There's not an income threshold because the circumstances vary so dramatically. It may be that a family with a fairly high income may well have an autistic child in their family which they're helping to support and assist with, and they bring another child into it. To have an income threshold would not be an appropriate way of making a decision with respect to the ability of a family to support another child within the context of their home. That's why it has to be an individualized evaluation of the circumstances.

J. Kwan: I do note the time. Perhaps I'll continue with questions for the minister on this section after the lunch hour.

Hon. G. Hogg: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 63

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

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 64

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

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan