2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Morning Sitting
Volume 32, Number 3
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of the Whole House |
10071 |
Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act |
|
Hon. G. Abbott |
|
R. Austin |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
10082 |
Estimates: Ministry of Social Development (continued) |
|
C. James |
|
B. Routley |
|
Hon. S. Cadieux |
|
N. Simons |
|
D. Routley |
|
J. Kwan |
|
R. Chouhan |
|
N. Macdonald |
|
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: In this House I call committee stage on Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act; and in Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and, if we finish that, going to the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 10:05 a.m.
Hon. G. Abbott: Good morning, Madam Chair. As we begin the committee stage debate on Bill 22, I want to introduce the officials who are here with me today. On my immediate right, James Gorman is the Deputy Minister of Education. Paul Straszak, on my left, is the chief executive officer for the Public Sector Employers Council. Behind us is Rick Davis, who is an assistant deputy minister with the ministry.
On section 1.
R. Austin: With regard to the definitions, hon. Chair, could I ask the minister how these definitions were determined?
Hon. G. Abbott: They're all consistent with existing legislation.
R. Austin: With regard to BCPSEA, does the government intend to continue with the BCPSEA structure?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
R. Austin: Could the minister please tell the House how many members are currently in the BCPSEA structure?
Hon. G. Abbott: There are nine directors on BCPSEA from the school districts in the province, and there are four reps from government in BCPSEA as well.
R. Austin: Could the minister let us know what kind of staff support goes towards BCPSEA?
Hon. G. Abbott: Approximately 18 to 20.
R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House how the directors are chosen on BCPSEA?
Hon. G. Abbott: The four government representatives are selected by government. The nine directors from the school districts are elected at large by the B.C. School Trustees Association.
R. Austin: The reps who are chosen by government — what specific skill sets do they have?
Hon. G. Abbott: Each brings a unique combination of labour relations and educational skills and knowledge.
R. Austin: Could the minister just outline the process upon which BCPSEA works?
Hon. G. Abbott: For the purposes of collective bargaining, which I presume the opposition Education critic is aiming at, the BCPSEA receives their mandate from government in terms of fiscal or financial mandate. The BCPSEA also canvasses their members, who are the 60 school districts across British Columbia, to assess what the priorities of those 60 districts might be in terms of bargaining.
R. Austin: With regards to the four representatives who are chosen by government, could the minister just outline who they are specifically? Is a superintendent involved? Is it all people from his ministry? What kinds of people come as representatives of government?
Hon. G. Abbott: The four are first an official from the public sector bargaining and compensation division, Public Sector Employers Council secretariat, an assistant deputy minister from the Ministry of Education and an executive director from the Ministry of Education as well as the president and CEO of the Public Sector Employers Council. I should also note that there are two non-voting representatives. One is the superintendent from a school district, and the second is a secretary-treasurer from a school district.
R. Austin: Could the minister please let me know or let the House know, in terms of the staff who support BCPSEA — and I know the minister has said there were at least 78 meetings during this bargaining process — what's the cost of these 18 staff members in terms of their wages? What's the lowest to the highest? What are their per diems? And what are the travel costs involved
[ Page 10072 ]
in holding 78 meetings throughout the province?
Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I appreciate that the opposition Education critic may be pursuing some objective here, which is not clear to me at this point in time.
To advise the member, of the 78 meetings that occurred between BCPSEA, government and the BCTF, all of those meetings took place in Vancouver. They alternate between BCPSEA headquarters and BCTF headquarters, conveniently located within a few blocks of one another in Vancouver. The travel costs are minimal with respect to that.
Again, I'm not sure exactly where the member is going with this in relation to Bill 22. It's a fascinating debate so far, but I'm not quite sure where he's going with this.
R. Austin: The purpose of this is just to see what the cost is to British Columbians in terms of the overall process of this bargaining.
Could the minister tell the House what remuneration is given towards members who fly in for these meetings in Vancouver?
The Chair: Member, for future questions, relevance to Bill 22.
Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm fascinated to learn the vital connection between this information and the content of the bill.
Just so the member knows, the bargaining teams are three members. They include, for BCPSEA…. The vice-chair of BCPSEA is the bargaining rep. The others are from government and from PSEC. The costs are minimal. We're not aware of what, if any, the per diem is for the BCPSEA rep.
R. Austin: The purpose of this line of questioning is that we've seen, over many months of negotiations, the government more or less foreshadowing that these negotiations were sort of not going very far. Yet there were 78 meetings. All we're trying to determine here is what the cost was to the taxpayers for a series of meetings that clearly weren't going very far.
Could the minister just tell us if all of these meetings were face-to-face meetings?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
R. Austin: Could the minister just sort of give us some guidelines as to the total cost of having these meetings, over the 78 meetings?
Hon. G. Abbott: The bargaining sessions take place at either the BCTF headquarters or the BCPSEA headquarters. There's no cost for the location of the meetings. Further — and I can only speak for the non-BCTF side of the negotiations — two of the three in the bargaining team are staff or officials with government. The cost of 78 bargaining sessions, from that perspective, is minimal.
R. Austin: But I take it that the government doesn't actually have a total number as to what the costs of these sessions were.
Hon. G. Abbott: If the member is asking us if we keep a collected total on the sandwich and coffee disbursements and so on for each meeting….
Interjection.
Hon. G. Abbott: Just how much does it cost?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Abbott: It is minimal, Madam Chair, to the member who doesn't have the floor. The cost is minimal.
Again, I'm a bit puzzled. We're on section 1 of what I think both sides of the House….
Interjection.
The Chair: Members, through the Chair.
Continue.
Hon. G. Abbott: I think there are many fascinating things to debate in this bill. I'm not sure that the collective cost of sandwiches for 78 meetings is…. Is that an important consideration?
But what I'm glad to do is…. We will try to get, for the member, what the total cost is. It will be, presumably, what the cost is to bring in the members and their support teams. But I don't believe that anyone has aggregated those costs per single meeting, nor collectively for the 78 meetings. So I'm glad to try to assemble that important information for the member and provide it to him.
But I don't know how much debate time they wish to take on this minutiae, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Members, the Chair appreciates submissions from both sides. Those issues may be better canvassed in the Committee of Supply.
Member, please continue.
R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House how the definition of the cooling-off period was determined?
Hon. G. Abbott: There are three elements in the consideration of a cooling-off period in this case. One is our evaluation of the time required for a mediator to do
[ Page 10073 ]
his or her work with respect to the parties; our best estimation of the period required to bring the matters to a resolution; and thirdly, sufficient time that we didn't see any additional interruption or disruption of the school year 2012-2013.
R. Austin: Could the minister inform the House who was consulted about the cooling-off period?
Hon. G. Abbott: The decision was a decision of government.
R. Austin: What is the purpose that the cooling-off period intended to address?
Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of the cooling-off period is to assist the parties in moving beyond the stalemate that was evident after 12 months of bargaining without any substantive agreement on elements — to allow them, with the support of a mediator, to hopefully move to a broader area of agreement.
Also — and I think this is very important — it was aimed at ending phase 1 of the strike action which had been undertaken by the BCTF since September 6, 2011, which in my view and in the view of government was having an adverse impact on at least some students in the education system.
Phase 1, the members will recall, involved a combination of no report cards going home for parents and no collaborative meetings between teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents, etc. That had been going on for six months, and we were certainly seeing among some vulnerable kids — some kids who were at risk of failure in grades or in courses — an impact. So those are the reasons why the cooling-off period.
R. Austin: The minister has told the House that the date was chosen by himself. Could I ask if there was any consultation with any of the education stakeholders around the purpose of having the cooling-off process?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
R. Austin: Now we hear that teachers are considering removing their extracurricular activities, which of course — I'm sure the minister would agree — are quite essential to our kids' overall experience in the educational system. Does the minister not recognize that by legislating a cooling-off process, this can be seen to be inflaming the situation, to a certain degree, and making our teachers feel devalued to the point where they're so angry that they're now contemplating removing all their voluntary activity?
Hon. G. Abbott: If the member has an alternative scenario that he would like to describe, we'd certainly welcome hearing that. We acted on what we believed was the best interest of students across British Columbia. We acted on what are the best interests of their parents. We were able to discuss these important issues with our partners in education. If the member is suggesting that we should have just let phase 1 continue on indefinitely and hear more and more stories about kids failing courses and grades without their parents having any idea that they were experiencing that challenge, then I'm glad to hear that.
There's nothing here that devalues the important work of teachers. This is a thoughtful and balanced bill that provides for a cooling-off period to hopefully build on something that did not occur for 12 months in 78 face-to-face discussions between teachers and their employer.
If the member has an alternative, we'd certainly love to hear it. But I hope that alternative is not to see phase 1 continue indefinitely, because then one would be suggesting that somehow students were not the principal reason why we have an education system in British Columbia.
R. Austin: We did put forward an alternate solution yesterday that was voted down by the government.
I'm intrigued by the minister's actions in terms of thinking that phase 1 was so disruptive to our children's education when over the last ten years there have been thousands — tens of thousands — of classes that were too large to be educationally sound and thousands of classes that had kids with special needs in them, which I think would have had a much more adverse effect on our children's education over the last ten years than phase 1.
Having said that, I would just like to ask the minister if an earlier date for the cooling-off period could not have been chosen. Or was it ever canvassed?
Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's useful to point this out, because at some point we should really have a blunt discussion about the alternative that has been suggested by the opposition. We know that the proposal from the NDP opposition was to engage a mediator without the net zero restriction which government has put on that mediator. I'm presuming that if the Education critic can speak for government, he can confirm that, in fact, what they had in mind was a mediation process that would not be bounded by any financial mandate, that it would be open.
I would suggest to the critic that if that is so and if they have actually no interest in continuing net zero for either the B.C. Teachers Federation or any other public sector union in the province, they should say so. I'm sure there will be no end to people who will get up and salute that. But the ambivalence around this that somehow there's some magic beans that one can put in a mandate without being blunt about it…. I challenge the opposition to be clear with the people of British Columbia about that.
[ Page 10074 ]
I'd love to hear if that's the case.
In terms of the cooling-off period, as I said in response to an earlier question, the cooling-off period is designed to give the parties sufficient time to explore, under the guidance of a mediator, the important issues at play in the mediator's mandate and, again, to also bring an end to phase 1, which has gone on for six months and which I believe has had an impact on students, to try to ensure that their scholastic year 2011-2012 is not any further disrupted than it already has been.
R. Austin: With regards to the cooling-off period, when the government was doing its thinking around this bill, were there any options other than a cooling-off period canvassed?
Hon. G. Abbott: We always canvass a full range of options in consideration of important public policy.
R. Austin: Could I ask the minister to share some of those thoughts as to what the alternatives might have been to a cooling-off period?
Hon. G. Abbott: We could have continued with the phase 1 job action, and that was unacceptable to me.
R. Austin: Was that the only thing that was considered, or were there other alternatives?
Hon. G. Abbott: There are, really, three courses that could be undertaken, given the situation that faces the government and the parties in dispute. One would be to let the phase 1 job action continue, to see continued face-to-face bargaining meetings, which had been pretty much entirely unproductive over the course of 12 months. That would be one alternative, and there I would suggest that government was at risk of particularly failing students and their parents, particularly those students who, for one reason or another, were at risk in that situation.
A second alternative would have been for government to impose a solution. We chose not to do that.
Instead, we chose to put in place a mediation process, a cooling-off period, to allow the parties to see if they could, under the support of a mediator, find some solution.
Again, it is interesting to me that the opposition New Democrats as well as the president of the BCTF were all very strongly supportive of mediation right up until the time that the mediation processes for Bill 22 were announced. That, of course, was mediation based on a financial mandate of net zero. Suddenly the affection of both the NDP and the BCTF for mediation promptly disappeared. Again, I'll invite the critic to explain that loss of affection.
R. Austin: The mediation as outlined in Bill 22 doesn't cover simply net zero. It also covers only specific items that are within the mandate of the mediator and not other items that might be of a non-monetary nature, so this isn't mediation in a real sense.
To get back to my earlier question, the decision around the cooling-off period. Were the boards of education consulted around that decision?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, their executive was.
R. Austin: Could the minister advise the House as to what their advice was around this?
Hon. G. Abbott: They were supportive.
R. Austin: Was BCPSEA also consulted?
Hon. G. Abbott: No, because they are a party to the dispute.
R. Austin: Could I ask, with regards to definitions, in terms of "employee," does that also include TOCs, teachers on call?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
R. Austin: Before finishing my questions on section 1, I would like to get back to my question with regards to the total costs. I understand that we're not going to be able to get the total costs of the meetings, but in terms of the staff support, the 18 people who are there to support BCPSEA, could we at least get a total cost of those staff in terms of what it's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia?
The Chair: Again, Member, I think those questions are better canvassed in the estimates debate.
Hon. G. Abbott: The BCPSEA is an organization that exists for the purpose of the public school employers bargaining. The annual cost of it is, I gather, something in the range of $1.2 million.
All the staff are there for these purposes and to manage labour relations matters through the course of the year. There's no incremental cost in terms of the bargaining, and if there is, it would be very minor.
It's a fascinating, fascinating area of discovery, but again, I'm not certain that it weighs a whole lot on Bill 22.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
R. Austin: Could the minister give an explanation of
[ Page 10075 ]
subsection 2(1), please?
Hon. G. Abbott: Subsection (1) provides that the Labour Relations Code applies to matters dealt with in divisions 2 and 3 of the act. Division 2 requires teachers to return to work. Division 3 provides for the continuation of collective bargaining and the appointment of a mediator. However, if there is any inconsistency between divisions 2 and 3 and the code, divisions 2 and 3 take precedence.
R. Austin: Could the minister give an example of when there might be a conflict, to explain how subsection (1) might apply?
Hon. G. Abbott: The most prominent example here would be that the Labour Code generally speaking would be permissive of strike action, whereas this bill says clearly that there will be a cooling-off period and mediation.
R. Austin: Did the minister consult with anyone about this subsection?
Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that this is fairly standard back-to-work language and a consistent and typical template for that purpose.
R. Austin: Were the school boards consulted on this?
Hon. G. Abbott: This is technical Labour Code language, and there would be no consultation appropriately around this.
R. Austin: Can I ask for the minister just again to give an explanation of subsection (2)? I know he gave it very quickly, but I didn't quite catch it — subsection 2(2).
Hon. G. Abbott: Subsection (2) gives the Labour Relations Board exclusive jurisdiction to decide a question under divisions 2 or 3.
R. Austin: Could the minister give an example of when there might be a conflict, explaining how this subsection (2) might apply?
Hon. G. Abbott: The Labour Relations Board would, through this subsection, determine, for example, what is a strike or isn't a strike.
R. Austin: Again with this subsection, were any of the other parties consulted such as the labour board or school boards or BCPSEA?
Hon. G. Abbott: No. Again, these are technical matters in this area.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
R. Austin: Could the minister please explain subsection 3(1)?
Hon. G. Abbott: Section 3 prevents legal strike activity by employees, a lockout by the employer and continues the existing collective agreement during the cooling-off period.
R. Austin: Did the minister consult with any of the parties in regard to subsection 3(1)?
Hon. G. Abbott: There was discussion, as I noted earlier, around the issues of appointment of a mediator, a cooling-off period and other elements that are contained in section 3.
R. Austin: Could the minister tell us what that consultation resulted in? What was the advice?
Hon. G. Abbott: There was strong support for both mediation and the cooling-off period.
R. Austin: Who specifically gave strong support for that?
Hon. G. Abbott: We discussed this with all of the major stakeholder groups, including the executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the executive of the B.C. School Superintendents Association and the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association.
R. Austin: Could the minister explain specifically subsection (1)(b) and the purpose of this specific subsection?
Hon. G. Abbott: Section 3(b) is consistent with subsections 3(1)(a) to (d). It imposes the cooling-off period, immediately ends the legal strike by the BCTF and requires striking employees to resume all regular work, duties and requirements. These subsections also prevent the employers from locking out BCTF members.
R. Austin: Were all school trustees in support of this?
Hon. G. Abbott: Not all school trustees were canvassed.
R. Austin: But the executive was fully in support of this, then?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
[ Page 10076 ]
R. Austin: Of course, as we know, all workers in the province of B.C. have a legal right to cease work in order to address their concerns about their working conditions. That, of course, includes teachers. Why did the minister decide to effectively run roughshod over this longstanding right to withdraw work?
Hon. G. Abbott: I suppose we could summarize that in two words: students and parents. We had seen a dispute that had gone on for six months. I'm glad to share with the member letters and concerns that were expressed by parents and students around the province about what impact phase 1 was having. That is the reason why we undertook what we have.
Again, as we canvassed earlier, government could have imposed a solution. We chose not to do that. We instead chose to engage in what we believed could be both a thoughtful and constructive way of the parties working through these issues but without ongoing damage to vulnerable kids in this province.
If the member was seeing something from the first six months of phase 1 that indicated a breakthrough was on the horizon, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to hear it now.
If the member saw something in the first year of bargaining sessions between the employer and employees that indicated there was a breakthrough on the immediate horizon, I'd love to hear that. But everything we were seeing was indicating that phase 1 would go on right through the school year.
We were facing the prospect of kids not having a single report card for the scholastic year 2011-2012 — not a single report card. We were facing the prospect of kids on the bubble, kids at risk of failing, vulnerable kids, and kids and their parents who didn't have any opportunity because there were no collaborative meetings to develop remedial strategies to help them be successful in their school.
That is the reason why we undertook what we did. It was to try to serve the overriding interests of students, who every educational partner in this system serves.
R. Austin: My response to that would be that yes, I've also seen some letters. But by and large, I think phase 1 was designed specifically, for the most part, to not affect the students themselves.
In regards to those who are on the cusp of finishing their school careers, in grade 12, I think there was a huge effort made — I think the minister has acknowledged this — on the part of teachers to ensure that there was a huge amount of feedback in terms of how kids were doing. Obviously, they needed to know that in order to be able to access university and colleges and to be able to graduate.
I would say the problem with this bill is that rather than create a cooling-off period that enables us to come to a resolution, it may in many regards inflame the fires that have already been going. I mean, this dispute that we are trying to resolve in Bill 22 comes about through a long history, in part because teachers felt for ten years that a large part of their contractual rights were stripped.
Ironically, this bill recognizes that, because it says that in the future, come 2013, those rights that were stripped, and deemed to be illegally stripped by the B.C. Supreme Court, are going to be put back — but not right now.
I would ask the minister to perhaps give an explanation as to how, in his mind, he thinks this is going to solve the problem. I think where we are going to be, come August 31, could be a considerably worse place than we are right now.
Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's important that we have a discussion of this point now.
The member suggested that phase 1 was not affecting students, by and large. That's a fine proposition to make, I think, for many and perhaps even most students in B.C.'s education system. There are about 520,000 of them that are in school full-time.
I think what the opposition Education critic says is plausible in that regard. Probably most weren't suffering. Smart kids will get through this with no problem. They're not at risk of failing. They're not on that bubble between a pass and failure. They're not on that bubble between D and F.
I can tell you, Madam Chair…. Again, if the opposition critic thinks I'm wrong, I want him to speak up and tell me that I'm wrong. But we know this. To their credit, many teachers in the province reached out to parents — sometimes through personal meetings, sometimes through the Internet, sometimes by a phone call. Many teachers reached out to parents to let them know how their kids were doing. Many, many teachers did that, and to their credit. But not all teachers did that.
I'd also say that many parents reached out to teachers, and again, through all the means they had available. Where they had the opportunity during those class hours to do that, I know that they were. But again, not all parents were reaching out.
What we're talking about here, though, are a portion of that 520,000. I don't know whether it's 5 percent. I don't know whether it's 10 percent. I don't know whether it's 15 percent. But there is a portion of the public school students in this province who were at risk of failure, and their parents had no idea. Either they had reached out unsuccessfully, or the teacher had reached out unsuccessfully.
We know that there was a portion of the student population that was suffering because the adults in the room couldn't reach agreement about a contract for the Teachers Federation. We know that.
Would I in good conscience, as an Education Minister, say: "Oh, you know, only 5 percent, maybe only 10 percent of students are being adversely affected by this dis-
[ Page 10077 ]
pute, and therefore, we can ignore them. They might be at risk, they might be on the bubble, anyways"? Well, I can't do that.
What we do in an education system…. Report cards are the mechanism whereby parents understand how their kids are doing. That report card also constitutes a permanent record of how the student has done in a grade or in a course in school.
Most importantly, a report card will often trigger the opportunity or desire for a parent to intervene on behalf of their child to talk with a teacher, to talk with, potentially, an educational assistant, to talk to the principal or vice-principal about what an appropriate remedial strategy would be so that their child might enjoy the opportunity to pass rather than fail a course.
That was occurring. To think that it was not is incorrect. That was occurring, and there had been six months of it. And there had been 12 months of unproductive bargaining.
From my perspective, it is most unfortunate that…. Again, the critic and I and other members in this room — I hope, as adults, we all feel a little bad about the fact that as adults we were unable to reach an agreement which would allow our kids to have the benefit of our good to very good education system that exists in this province.
So if there is something here…. I've seen this expression "inflame the situation" used a couple of times now by the critic, as if there was something that government could do that would bring an end to the job action but not inflame the situation.
Again, I have invited, on one occasion, the critic or any of his colleagues to tell me what that might be. I'd love to hear it. Perhaps it is mediation without the binding net zero financial mandate. If that is so, I'm pleased to hear it, and I'll respect the view that we can do this by simply opening up the financial mandate. Maybe that's the way to do it, and if that's what the members opposite believe is the route to not inflaming the situation, I'm delighted to hear that.
In terms of how to solve the problem, this, in our estimation, is the best way to solve the problem. The problem is ensuring that we restore report cards, which remain the way in which the system communicates to parents how their kids are doing. It also restores collaborative meetings, which are the way in which the educational partners sit down and discover ways to remediate what may be a course leading to failure.
I felt it was important, and I hope I answered the member's question in the process.
R. Austin: With regard to the minister's comments, I certainly would acknowledge that not in all cases was there proper reporting to parents. We would like all teachers to have done that, and most certainly did. I guess I would have to concur that that did not happen in every case.
However, in terms of the minister expressing his concern for children who are not succeeding in the school system under the current phase 1 job action, I would argue that there are a vast number of kids who have not been succeeding not just for the last 12 months during the BCTF job action but actually for the last ten years, especially those kids who required special assistance.
It's all very well for the minister to say that one of the reasons why we're bringing in Bill 22 is so that we can go back to having these collaborative meetings between teachers and principals and others who give assessment and guidance to kids who are not finding success in the school system.
The problem is that once you have that collaborative meeting and come to some conclusion as to the kinds of supports that a specific child needs, very often in the last ten years, especially since Bills 27 and 28 stripped out class-size and composition rules, there have simply not been the resources in place after this collaborative process takes place. That's the truth.
I don't have statistics at hand, but I would suspect that it's at least 10, if not 15, probably at least 20 percent of our school population who have been vulnerable — not for the last year but for the last ten years. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it repeats the actions that caused a lot of this insecurity and inability to support so many of our vulnerable children in the school system. That's what I would say to the minister in terms of his remarks.
Now, I'd like to ask this specific question. In light of the long history of labour law which gives the workers the right to strike, could I ask why it was determined that subsection (b) was necessary, in the context of all of this history?
The Chair: Hon. Members, I appreciate the submissions from both sides, but I would bring both sides back to consideration of section 3.
Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, thank you for bringing us back to the section in question. The member was raising issues around a subsequent section of the bill, and we certainly will answer that. But further to your benevolent and constructive direction, I'll save that opportunity for a little bit later.
In terms of why sub (b), first of all, it is to be explicit. The purpose of a bill is to be precise and direct and explicit and not leave issues in question. That's what we aim to do here. We did want to bring an end to the phase 1 strike action or job action by the BCTF, which, as we've now canvassed repeatedly, was having an impact on students.
R. Austin: Section 3(1)(b) states: "the BCTF and the employees represented by the BCTF must not strike or
[ Page 10078 ]
declare a strike and must terminate any strike." Then section 3(1)(d) states: "any declaration, authorization or direction to go on strike given before or after the coming into force of this section becomes invalid." Don't these sections mean the same thing? Why has the government included both (b) and (d) when they essentially, to my mind, mean the same thing?
Hon. G. Abbott: I think we're dealing with some fairly boilerplate language here. I'm advised that one section invalidates past declarations of strike and the other invalidates current or future declarations of strike.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
R. Austin: Section 5 states that the collective bargaining must be done in good faith and every reasonable effort made to conclude a new agreement consistent with the restrictions imposed by this legislation. However, the Labour Relations Code states in section 11: "A trade union or employer must not fail or refuse to bargain collectively in good faith in British Columbia and to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement."
Can the minister explain why he has specifically added this in when it is a given that the union will have to bargain in good faith?
Hon. G. Abbott: Again, in terms of section 5, it says: "…the parties must continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith and must make every reasonable effort to conclude a new collective agreement that is consistent with this Division." I hope there is nothing too surprising here.
It is not a reference to the union; it is not a reference to the employer. It says that the parties must bargain collectively and in good faith. I don't know why we would expect anything less than that. The object of this bill is precisely summed up in that — that we want the parties to bargain in good faith to try to reach an agreement.
R. Austin: Is it fair to say that Bill 22, which is coming about in part as a result of the judicial decision last April around Bills 27 and 28 in which the judge essentially stated that she did not feel that the bargaining had taken place in good faith…?
Is this an attempt to try and reiterate that in future the bargaining will be done in good faith?
Hon. G. Abbott: The member may want to take a second look at Justice Griffin's judgment, because she specifically and explicitly did not support the suggestion from the BCTF that the negotiations were not conducted in good faith.
R. Austin: My understanding of Justice Griffin's ruling…. I know that the minister has stated that from the point of view of the government, the ruling stated that Bills 27 and 28 and the stripping of bargaining rights was not illegally done. It was the lack of consultation. Provided the consultation had taken place, then presumably, the actions of the government would have been correct.
But I'd like the minister to comment on the notion that if one simply consults but does something that is not in keeping with labour law…. I don't know how that is considered to be legitimately legal.
Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it is important to go back to where the opposition Education critic started with this, which was a suggestion that somehow section 5 was constructed to meet what he suggested was an absence of good faith on the part of the employer around 27 and 28. Again, it is vital to point out that Justice Griffin's decision does not say that at all, and the member should canvass that important document to understand that it does not say that.
We know that the consequence of Justice Griffin's decision was to strike down some sections of Bills 27 and 28. The aim of this bill, in part, is to remediate the shortcomings of those struck sections of Bills 27 and 28. We believe we're doing it in a manner that is appropriate and consistent with the direction that Justice Griffin provided.
R. Austin: Can I ask the minister to give his definition of "bargaining in good faith"?
Hon. G. Abbott: The parties make every effort to find an agreement.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
R. Austin: Can the minister provide an overview of this section and its purpose?
Hon. G. Abbott: This section provides for the appointment of a mediator to oversee the negotiations between the parties, the terms of reference of the mediator and the role of the mediator should an agreement between the parties not be reached.
R. Austin: Subsection 6(1) states that the minister "must appoint a mediator." In October the minister was quoted multiple times as stating that he did not see a voluntary conclusion as a likely outcome of negotiations. He did say that "we do hope that it's successfully concluded
[ Page 10079 ]
in the collective agreement, but there is not a lot of evidence to this point that it will be."
Why did the government not request that the Labour Relations Board appoint a mediator months ago when the government realized that there was a deadlock at that time?
Hon. G. Abbott: First, I want to say how flattered I am that the opposition would pay attention to my every word uttered at points. That's a rare honour indeed to be accorded that kind of attention, and it's much appreciated, I must say. I hope the member has that opportunity someday to have a similar flattery extended to him.
We do have an obligation, through collective bargaining processes, to get the parties an opportunity to work through the range of issues or disagreements they have at the bargaining table. My recollection is that there were something like 1,109 issues that had the opportunity to be canvassed at the table and that they'd resolved something like a half-dozen of those 1,109 over the period of a year.
I think my comment, with respect to trying to have the parties pursue their goal of a collective agreement, is an appropriate one. One never knows, in labour relations discussions, whether they can reach an agreement, which then builds a foundation for additional momentum. These are issues which have on occasion been resolved at the table.
I'd certainly point the opposition Education critic to — I believe it's nearly 140, and maybe we'll get an update on that today; it does change every day — the now close to 140 agreements between virtually every public service union in the province, with the exception of the Teachers Federation, on a net zero basis, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees and others. So it can happen. There was no reason, perhaps other than the political and labour relations culture of the parties in this case, that would prevent the BCTF from concluding such an agreement.
It did not occur, and at some point government has to say what a fair balance is between letting the parties have the opportunity to try to work this out versus the rights of every one of the 520,000 public school students to enjoy a successful year at the institution of their choice.
I think that's very important as well. So we had to conclude, as we approached one year of unproductive collective bargaining processes, that it was time to move to a different way to try to address the differences between the parties. The way we did that was not an imposed solution but, rather, putting in place processes revolving around a mediator and a cooling-off period.
R. Austin: The minister references essentially a year of failed negotiations. Again, my question to the minister is: why did the minister wait the whole year or most of the year before bringing in Bill 22? Would it not have served the purposes to have asked the Labour Relations Board to appoint a mediator, say, six months into this process? Realizing that with 1,100 outstanding issues on the table and having successfully bargained only nine, it clearly wasn't going very well, why would the minister not have acted earlier and had a mediator appointed by the Labour Relations Board rather than using the Legislature for this?
Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the timing, first of all, I think it's important to note that six months ago there had been six months of negotiation, but there had not been commencement of phase 1 job action by the Teachers Federation. That last six months is where the issues have occurred.
Secondly, it is fundamental but vital to point out that the minister doesn't go to the Labour Relations Board and request a mediator. The parties go to the Labour Relations Board and make their request. We understand that the Teachers Federation went to the Labour Relations Board with that request about two weeks ago, and further to that I have a couple of comments.
The most recent is March 12, so very recently. I'm not even sure what day it is today — the 13th? This is a letter of yesterday from Michael Fleming, the associate chair of mediation at the Labour Relations Board. He concludes: "Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping the parties to achieve a collective agreement." That's a letter of yesterday.
While I have the floor, Madam Chair…. I have heard repeatedly from members opposite the claim that somehow the B.C. Public School Employers Association were in support of this. They are, at best, misleading when they say that.
This is a letter of March 2, again from Michael Fleming, in which he summarizes the positions of the parties and says this: "In that regard, BCPSEA accepts that mediation can, in the appropriate circumstances, be an effective tool in assisting the parties to reach a collective agreement. However, BCPSEA says that in this case, in order to reach a collective agreement, at a minimum BCTF must accept the net zero mandate. There is no indication that BCTF may be prepared to accept the net zero framework."
Again, that's from Michael Fleming, dated March 2. This is a really fundamental point. Actually, I have a lot of respect for the opposition Education critic. He invariably chooses his words carefully — or almost always does, almost as often as I do, perhaps, somewhere in that realm, a very high threshold — and I appreciate that.
I've also heard from others. I have heard, particularly, from the opposition leader that while he had no interest in interfering or getting involved in the issues at the collective bargaining table, in fact he does precisely
[ Page 10080 ]
that when he calls into question the net zero mandate. It creates an expectation among the parties, particularly among the union side of the parties, that somehow there can be an agreement outside of the net zero mandate.
Again, it goes to the content of these letters from the LRB. If the position of the opposition is that they are opposed to net zero mandate and they are supportive of mediation processes that are freed of the net zero mandate, then they should say so. Then we can have, perhaps, a different discussion. But to suggest that somehow this can proceed in the absence of that clarification I think is not acceptable.
R. Austin: Again, back to subsection 6(1), could I ask why it is that the minister is the person who is going to be choosing to appoint this mediator?
Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question, and it is an important question.
First of all, I would say that I have, in my comments since the introduction of Bill 22, repeatedly and informally invited the suggestions that the parties may have in respect of a mediator — and indeed, invite any British Columbian should they have an interest in offering up suggestions for an appropriate mediator. I welcome them to do so.
Further, it is my intention on the passage of this bill to, in a more formalized way, again invite the parties in this dispute to suggest potential mediators who might be able to deal with the issues here.
This point is hugely important. We want a mediator who will be able to understand and articulate important educational issues and matters because how these issues are sorted out will be vitally important to the future of education in the province and vitally important to every one of the currently 520,000 public education students in the province.
R. Austin: Given the challenges of this particular file and the history of what has gone on over the last year, could the minister inform the House as to what kinds of skill sets he's looking for from the potential mediator that either he's going to choose or that the other parties can bring to the table as suggestions?
Hon. G. Abbott: I think some of the elements that we would be looking for — and these are, I'd say, chief among them — are, first of all, demonstrated education skills and expertise — someone who understands, broadly speaking, the education sector; someone with a demonstrated dispute-resolution skill set — someone who has some experience in bringing parties together; and, I guess, thirdly, someone who will be highly respected and acknowledged to be so.
R. Austin: Have the minister and his staff already started to gather some names of prospective mediators? And does he think that someone such as a member of the judiciary, either a sitting judge or a former judge, would serve under the skill sets that he has just outlined?
Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, staff has been gathering potential names of mediators. We are, at this point, not ruling anyone in or out in terms of the possibilities. We certainly would not rule out a current or former member of the judiciary — again, provided that they had some educational expertise that they could bring to the discussion.
R. Austin: Now, given the history of conflict in terms of this file and the fact that this bill directs the minister to be the one to appoint the mediator, would it not be seen as more effective if it wasn't the minister directly appointing a mediator? In point of fact, in spite of the letter that came from the Labour Relations Board, it's more normative in this sector to have the labour board appoint a mediator.
Section 74 of "Mediation and Disputes Resolution" states, and I'm going to put this into the record:
"(1) The associate chair of the Mediation Division may appoint a mediation officer if (a) notice has been given to commence collective bargaining between a trade union and an employer, (b) either party makes a written request to the associate chair to appoint a mediation officer to confer with the parties to assist them to conclude a collective agreement or a renewal or revision of it, and (c) the request is accompanied by a statement of the matters the parties have or have not agreed on in the course of collective bargaining.
"(2) A person appointed as a mediation officer need not be an employee of the board.
"(3) The minister may at any time during the course of collective bargaining between an employer and a trade union, if he or she considers that the appointment is likely to facilitate the making of a collective agreement, appoint a mediation officer to confer with the parties.
"(4) If a mediation officer is appointed to confer with the parties, the mediation officer must, no later than 10 days after first meeting with the parties or 20 days after the mediation officer's appointment, whichever is sooner, or such longer period as the parties agree on or as the minister directs, report to the associate chair setting out the matters on which the parties have or have not agreed and such other information as the mediation officer considers relevant to the collective bargaining between the parties.
"(5) If either party so requests of the associate chair, or if the minister so directs, the mediation officer must provide to the associate chair and the parties a report concerning the collective bargaining dispute, and the report may include recommended terms of settlement.
"(6) Parties conferring with a mediation officer under this section must provide the information that the mediation officer requests concerning their collective bargaining."
My question is this. Given that there has been a lot of bad blood, historically, between the parties and between the governments and the teachers, having the minister having sole discretion on appointing the mediator…. Why would he not make use of the fact that the labour board could do that?
[ Page 10081 ]
It might seem, then, at least to be more fair. Of course, the minister still has his prerogative to give instructions to any mediator in terms of what the government's parameters are.
Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I need to refer the member again to the letter of March 12, 2012, from Michael Fleming, the associate chair of mediation of the Labour Relations Board, to the interested parties. I think I'd be pleased to share this with the member, if he doesn't have it.
Again, just to quote from Mr. Fleming: "As noted in my letter, the bargaining positions of the parties and the difficult nature of this bargaining dispute are well known. Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping the parties to achieve a collective agreement."
Just to understand why Mr. Fleming would conclude that, it goes to the issue of the inability…. We can condemn it or we can salute it. There will be a thousand different views on it, but the B.C. Teachers Federation will not accept a net zero mandate. That's the challenge here.
So in making the decision that we have, we're entirely cognizant of what I think the Education critic calls the historical bad blood between the parties here. That's certainly true. I'm certain that the member has read, as I have, the recent excellent book by a professor emeritus of history at the University of Victoria, Thomas Fleming, called Worlds Apart, which documents very well, I think, the long and tortured histories between governments….
The B.C. Liberals are certainly the latest example of that, but Professor Fleming also recounts the rather tortured history that existed even between the New Democratic Party in the government of the 1990s and the earlier Social Credit governments in this province.
This is a longstanding issue and one that we need to somehow move beyond. How we do that, I don't entirely know. I'm sure that's for another day.
Government has taken the position that until we recover from the economic dislocation that arose with the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis in late 2008 — which has beset economies in North America, Europe and elsewhere for, now, three years — public sector settlements will be at net zero.
So again, I don't believe there is any way around this, other than a mandate that includes that. I know that doesn't find favour, perhaps, with the opposition. I'm still awaiting their clarification on the point.
I know it won't find favour with the Teachers Federation. Nevertheless, we believe, as a government, that that is what needs to be done.
R. Austin: There was a great analogy that was included in a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun recently, on March 12. It stated: "When an angry couple asks for mediation, isn't it customary for both parties to agree on an objective mediator? Otherwise, it's like one of the parties saying: 'I'll just get my best friend in here to resolve this.'"
My question is this. Given that he has expressed a desire to have suggestions come from the opposition, from the Teachers Federation, from BCPSEA — and, presumably, his own staff are gathering some ideas — at the end of the day, is it going to be a mediator that is acceptable to both sides in this?
Otherwise, I would suggest that what is going to happen is that if the mediator is chosen and doesn't have the confidence of both sides but is appointed by the minister, which he is entitled to do under Bill 22, then we are once again, come August 31 of this year, going to be in a very difficult place — in many cases maybe worse than we are today.
So my question is: will that choice of mediator be one that is reflective of the interests of both sides in this dispute?
Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I want to point out, as I did earlier, that informally I have invited not only the parties but any other British Columbian who has an interest or a constructive thought in this area to bring forward their suggestions with respect to who might be an appropriate mediator in this case. As I also mentioned earlier, I will in a more formal way be inviting the parties to submit suggestions about who might be an appropriate mediator here.
In the end, it will be a difficult decision, no doubt, about the choice of mediator. It is possible that there is no one in British Columbia that would enjoy the unanimous support of all. But I can tell you that we will be giving enormous thought to this, based on the issues that I outlined earlier: educational skills and expertise, demonstrated abilities in dispute resolution and high standing among British Columbians.
I believe that whoever we appoint will be of impeccable standards and of impeccable quality. Whether that will be unanimously thought so, I don't know. That is more difficult to say. But I can assure the member that we will be devoting enormous thought to an appropriate selection.
R. Austin: Section 6 outlines the terms of reference for the mediator. Given that most mediators have more of an open slate with regards to the scope of mediation, can the minister explain why the role of the mediator, as outlined in Bill 22, is so restrictive?
Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, it's important to note that section 2(2)(a) to (e) includes those matters which the mediator is asked to provide comment on. The mediator,
[ Page 10082 ]
however, has broad scope. The mediator can go beyond that and explore other areas if he or she believes that is appropriate.
It is on the matters (a) through (e), some of which are of particular importance to the employer, some of which are of particular importance to the union — those we want, in his or her balanced mandate, to be addressed by the mediator. But if the mediator believes, within the broad scope that he or she possesses, that they can or should pursue other areas with the goal of achieving a mediated settlement, then they are free to do so.
The one area, again, where the mediator is bound and the parties are bound, as it has been in every case, is around the financial mandate of net zero. Beyond that there is broad scope to the mediator.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. van Dongen in the chair.
The committee met at 10:06 a.m.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $2,456,780,000 (continued).
C. James: We just have a couple of questions, as we talked about at the end of yesterday, to finish up from MLAs. Then we'll move into the ICM, the integrated case management.
I'll turn it over to my colleague from Cowichan.
The Chair: Member for Cowichan.
B. Routley: I'd like to thank the minister once again for the opportunity to meet with her earlier this year to talk about Seven Sisters, and that's what I'm here for today.
I have a little bit of a preamble, so I would like to go through that. Then I have two questions that I'll put to you at the same time, if that's okay, and then allow you the opportunity to respond.
Seven Sisters is a supportive recovery society that is a non-profit society aimed at supportive recovery housing for women struggling with drug and alcohol addictions. As you are well aware, the resources for this marginalized sector are grossly lacking. The few that do exist are often difficult to access, with long waiting lists.
There are currently only 22 women's SRH beds on all of Vancouver Island and none in the Cowichan Valley. The women must go off Island for treatment. They have little opportunity to have the time to sustain them, and they often quickly relapse.
The data shows evidence that this repetitive cycling through our emergency units in the hospitals and detox centres is costing thousands of dollars to our health care system. Couple that with law enforcement dollars spent trying to curb the social problems that are involved, and you begin to see the drain on provincial dollars.
Seven Sisters is planning a seven-bed unit in the Cowichan Valley, where none exists. They plan to use a holistic, therapeutic community model that has had so much success in both the United Kingdom and Europe, and even parts of the United States.
This was actually proposed this last year in the spring. Unfortunately, they are still waiting. The society is nonetheless moving ahead, and I'm happy that they're choosing to move ahead. They're going to purchase a home and move forward with planning. They have the house-purchase dollars, and they have funding for the salaries for the staff, which I think is incredible in and of itself. But they are really needing some kind of a guarantee of operational funding to be able to continue and to move forward.
So my question to the minister is — and I'm referring to your letter here: has your work on the supportive recovery homes been completed? That's question No. 1. My final question is: can Seven Sisters expect that government will act to assist this cost-saving effort?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, the ministry certainly recognizes that drug and alcohol dependency is a challenge for
[ Page 10083 ]
individuals and can be a significant barrier to achieving employment and independence. We do have the supportive recovery homes per-diem program in place to try and help address that gap in services by adding a per-diem rate of $30.90 to qualified supportive recovery homes.
To date, 25 homes are in that program. It is fully subscribed, and we are currently working with the Ministry of Health to support the registration process of supportive recovery homes under their correct legislation. That work is ongoing.
I did enjoy meeting with the member and Seven Sisters and hearing about their plans. In that meeting they certainly expressed that they are still working on their business plan, their model for how they are going to operate. As well, we committed in that meeting to continue to be in contact with them and to link them up with the manager of community relations and service quality in Nanaimo, who would in turn make sure they were connected with the appropriate folks at the Vancouver Island Health Authority. I'd be happy to follow up to make sure that that was indeed the case.
The Chair: Member for Cowichan Valley. I need to set the record straight, Member for Cowichan Valley. I apologize for that.
B. Routley: Thank you, Chair. Beautiful Cowichan Valley, I might add.
Thank you for your response, Minister. I just want to say that on behalf of Seven Sisters and the Cowichan Valley region, we know…. We have Warmland that deals with many people that are struggling with alcohol and drug addictions. You know, a lot of the situations that we see are really difficult for our health care system to deal with, and it really requires people to be willing to reach out for help.
So I can't say strongly enough that folks are looking for addiction support to deal with their addictions. And to think that we have so little on Vancouver Island, when we're building more jails and we're spending a huge amount of moneys on hospitals and other…. The result of not dealing with people with addictions is that it actually costs the system more and more money.
I guess my follow-up question is…. And just for the minister's knowledge, I've been invited to their opening. They're going ahead. They're purchasing a home. They're going to start with only two beds because they don't have the funding. They're supplying the salaries in the home.
I really think this is a worthwhile program, and I would urge the minister to use whatever influence she can to convince the powers that be that this is a program worth supporting.
I don't know whether you have any timelines for any further advancement of assistance or support, but I guess my question would be: if not this coming budget year, because it sounds like maybe the doors are closing, do you have any plans for accelerating this kind of useful program in the future? Is there some kind of hope I can give this group that the answer can get to…? I guess the question is: how do we get to yes?
Hon. S. Cadieux: If indeed the individuals who are receiving support through Seven Sisters are individuals who are also in receipt of income assistance, then we will do everything we can to ensure that that support is there for those individuals. The work will continue further to that with the Ministry of Health, as the Ministry of Health looks to improve their addiction services programs.
N. Simons: Just settling my thoughts here. There was an issue that a young man with a developmental disability had. His home-share providers left the province. I'm sorry if this is a completely different subject, but I know you guys are versatile and nimble, and you've got all the answers at the tips of your fingers.
The issue was that his home-share provider left the province for a specific period of time, which made him ineligible for persons-with-disabilities benefits. I think there's a place in legislation or in policy or guidelines that could allow for certain individuals beyond the currently allowable exemptions to be able to be outside of the province without losing their eligibility for disability benefits.
It's gone to tribunal, and it requires a policy change. I'm just wondering if the minister is considering that.
Hon. S. Cadieux: We are aware of the challenge here. The reality is that when somebody is receiving an income from Persons with Disabilities, they're receiving that income because they reside in the province of British Columbia. The way the legislation is…. If you are outside of the province for more than a month, then you're not living in the province in the month that you're receiving that income to reside in the province.
So there is a challenge. We are not looking to change the legislation in this regard because of the broader implications that it would pose. I think the good thing is that a person with a disability doesn't lose their designation if they're outside of the province for more than a month. They just can't receive benefits for the month that they're outside of the province.
N. Simons: Well, I think the legislation does allow for exceptions. If the person is looking for work or if they…. There are exceptions that the ministry's discretion allows.
If it causes undue hardship, which would, in my opinion, be a situation like this…. This young fellow left the province to visit his aging mother, who he reconnected with as an adult. This individual is not going to be looking for work. He's a person with a developmental disability.
[ Page 10084 ]
There is no expectation that he is somehow skirting his obligations. His medical coverage will continue.
So it seems almost discriminatory that this person who, for no other reason other than he's travelling with his home-share providers, which is what we're trying to encourage in terms of residential options…. It could almost be a deterrent for people to enter into those home-share situations if, in fact, suddenly they're not eligible to receive some financial compensation for the work that they do.
I'm just wondering: why wouldn't…? It wouldn't require legislative change. It would require policy change, and currently the policy allows for three exceptions. The one that includes undue hardship, I think, should be applied in a situation where someone who is receiving services from Community Living B.C.— maybe that's the designation — would be eligible for that.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The member raises a point. I think this is something that perhaps could be looked at not within the PWD area but within the broader PWD and CLBC areas. We'll be happy to take that back to the client service team.
C. James: I think the CLBC option is a good way to be able to review this case and review the exceptions.
Just another issue around specifics to do with income assistance and supports, and that's the issue of child tax benefits. Again, I'm sure the ministry has heard these concerns in the same way that MLAs have. It doesn't appear to be a change in policy needed. It appears to be the practice that sometimes goes on. This is the issue of people receiving child tax benefits in a lump sum versus receiving them each month.
As the minister probably knows, child tax benefits are exempt from being clawed back as they come each month. But if they're received in a lump sum benefit, often what we're finding, clients are finding, is that tax benefit clawed back.
I recognize that sometimes a top-up is given to individuals, and then the money is taken back to cover off that top-up that's covered that time period. But we also have cases of individuals who have not received a top-up, weren't aware that they could receive a top-up, receive their child tax benefit and then have it clawed back.
I just want to ask the minister to speak a little bit about that issue.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The child tax credits are not considered income and are fully exempt in the month they are received. The challenge occurs when retroactive payments are received in a lump sum, which is primarily caused when people don't file taxes on time. So the simple fix is having people file their taxes. Then this doesn't become a problem.
That said, we do recognize this challenge. We recognize how it plays out. The current statutory framework doesn't allow for staff to use discretion in this area, and it is something that we are actively aware of and looking at — whether or not there's anything we can do to resolve the problem. There is a dollar cost associated with a fix.
C. James: I certainly would encourage the minister to look at that opportunity for the fix just because we certainly have cases where it may be the spouse that hadn't filed on time. It's not the individual. It may be a single parent who has children. The spouse didn't file their taxes on time. Therefore, the mother is impacted with the children and doesn't receive the benefit because of the husband's or ex-husband's tax issue.
There is no logic to say to them: "It's exempt if you get it every month, but if you get it in a lump sum we take it back." There is no logic that I can find to be able to explain to them why that happens when it's the same amount of money that comes each month. It just all comes in a lump sum.
I certainly would encourage the ministry to take a look at that. It is a very difficult situation for people who often, because of no fault of their own, are stuck in this situation around the child tax benefits. And it's a huge income issue, particularly for single parents who rely on those dollars to be able to manage month to month and are waiting for those dollars — often have maxed out credit cards and have looked at loans from people to be able to manage while they're waiting for the child tax benefit to come in. The money comes in, and then it gets clawed back. So I think it's a real problem.
Just to touch on one other area before we move to the integrated case management issue, and that's the whole area of poverty and a poverty plan. I recognize that the government has not committed to putting in place a poverty reduction plan. It's certainly something that we in the opposition as well as other provinces of all political stripes across this country have agreed to put in place, a poverty reduction plan, recognizing the importance of measuring poverty and reporting out to the public in an independent way on poverty rates in our province.
I think everyone would agree that when things get measured, they tend to be paid attention to a little bit more. I think that's the real strength of putting in place a poverty reduction plan — not only the importance of addressing it in a province that has had the worst child poverty rate in eight years, but also the importance of making sure that it's reported independently to the public.
Government has a legal obligation through legislation to actually address this issue — governments of all political stripes. Whether the government changes or not, putting in place a poverty reduction plan would actually require a government to be able to look at measures and plans.
[ Page 10085 ]
My question to the minister would be: what role is the minister playing on this issue at all, and have there have been any discussions with this ministry around a poverty reduction plan?
Hon. S. Cadieux: In this ministry we do recognize that income assistance is certainly not an adequate response to poverty. As such, we are working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who are lead for government on developing regional poverty reduction strategies. We've committed to working closely with them.
Government has committed to working closely with the Representative for Children and Youth and UBCM and their healthy communities committee to develop those strategies that address the challenges that are real and exist in communities but are different from community to community and therefore require different responses.
C. James: Could the minister tell me the timelines for this work, since this ministry is involved in that work with MCFD? Is there any budget allocated to this?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, we are actively participating in the discussions led by the Ministry of Children and Families and with the communities that have been identified through UBCM as the pilot, so to speak, in this endeavour.
The expectation is that there will be a report back to UBCM in September. That's the timeline we're working with at this point. But for more detail in relation to this issue, it's best canvassed with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as they are lead.
C. James: Just the question of funding. Is there any funding allocated from your ministry to this process?
Hon. S. Cadieux: At this point, our staff participation is the only contribution outside of what we normally do.
C. James: A further question, then, around the minister's ministry's involvement. Is there any opportunity, then, for consultation coming back to the committee — for example, that we talked about at the beginning of estimates on disabilities? Is there any opportunity for consultation with the client base or the groups and organizations served by this ministry?
Certainly, I continue to believe that a provincial-wide plan is what's needed with the variations that are needed for regions. I wonder whether there's opportunity for clients who are served in the Ministry of Social Development to be involved in those poverty plans. Certainly, from my perspective, a large base of information sits with the people who receive supports from this ministry that will be incredibly helpful and incredibly important to be heard when it comes to any poverty plans that occur.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, it is the reality that many of the individuals who are recipients of services from this ministry are individuals that are likely to be served by any programs or services that will be put in place in response or a part of the discussions in the five communities. As such, they will definitely be involved in the process.
The process does provide for ongoing evaluation of outcomes of anything that's put in place. Certainly, that will involve the feedback of what is or isn't working for clients and individuals who are receiving the services.
C. James: We will canvass this again in MCFD. Certainly, I continue to believe that a provincial-wide poverty plan, not a piecemeal approach, is really the only way we're going to start addressing what really is one of the shames of our province, and that has to be addressed.
To move on now, then, to the integrated case management system. We've seen a number of different budget figures for the system, so I wonder if the minister could give us the current number. We saw $107 million as the original figure. We saw $180 million in the 2010 throne speech. I wonder if the minister could provide us with a current budget figure for ICM.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Since the project was approved to proceed, the budget has been set at $182 million, and the phases have been moving forward on time and on budget.
C. James: The original figure in the government budget was $107 million. I wonder if the minister could give an explanation of the increase in the amount to $182 million now, as the minister says.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The $107 million figure was a figure used notionally prior to going to market with the RFP. Included in that, as well, was a change in decision to move it to a phased approach, to do it in five phases with off-ramps. In doing so the budget was adjusted, and before final approval for the project to go ahead the budget of $182 million was approved.
C. James: The $182 million, just to be clear, then, is for all five phases.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.
C. James: To ask some questions, then, about the timeline, we know we're in phase 2 now. I understand that's to be implemented by the beginning of April. I wondered if the minister could tell us whether that timeline is still
[ Page 10086 ]
on. I recognize it's being done within two ministries, so whether she any has information on that as well.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we are on schedule for full implementation, or completion, of phase 2 on April 2. Phase 3 begins April 2 and is scheduled to complete at the end of December, and 2013 will be the implementation of phase 4. Phase 5 is scheduled for nine months in 2014. The whole project should be complete before the end of 2014.
C. James: Is there any issue between the delay at the Ministry of Children and Family Development and this ministry? I understand that it will be delayed at the Ministry of Children and Families, or a possibility of delay, on the second phase. I just wondered whether there is any issue, since the system is working in both ministries.
Hon. S. Cadieux: There is no delay. All of MCFD's users are in place, and they have chosen to phase in certain functionality. But all that functionality is built and complete.
We can talk in those generalities, but if you have specific questions related to the Ministry of Children and Families and their usage, we would ask that you direct them to their estimates.
C. James: Yes, we will ask those questions in the Ministry of Children and Families as well.
Could the minister tell me how much time has been dedicated to staff training on ICM?
Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarification, is the member opposite asking for the total number of training hours for all users, or is she asking a more specific question on the number of hours per user?
C. James: Both numbers would be fine, but the question really is around all the staff that will be using the ICM. What training opportunities have been given to all staff who are interacting with the system?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Then I can give the member some details. Web-based training is being provided for 2,200 MSD staff and about 2,300 service providers. And 75 staff and 146 service providers have completed the Train the Trainer program. Instructor-led training is being delivered across the province.
It's delivered on a role-specific and job function–specific basis and includes specific modules related to privacy and visibility so that staff understand their roles and responsibilities in respect to information-sharing and privacy and their approved usage, and so on.
Training is being delivered via mobile labs in 27 locations, approximately 245 sessions, and in local offices to reduce the time that staff are away from the front line.
Specific to this ministry, employment and assistance workers are receiving four days of instructor-led training plus an average of ten to 12 hours of web-based training, with access to a practice system so that they can practise using the system and get comfortable with it.
We can get you an overall number of hours for the system by the end of the day.
C. James: Thanks to the minister. That would be helpful information to be able to receive.
We talked earlier in the day yesterday about the issue of wait-lists, of people being frustrated by not being able to get service in offices. Certainly, I'm hearing those concerns from both staff and clients around the training issues.
I wondered what kind of processes have been put in place to help staff who are being taken out for important training — they need to get this training, no question — recognizing that their workload doesn't go away, that the workload is still there while they're off on training.
What kind of processes have been put in place to deal with the workload for individuals who are off on training?
Hon. S. Cadieux: There are a number of things we've been doing to try and manage this. It is, as you say, a big system to learn, and a lot of people have to go through the training. But certainly, client services is the first priority.
One of the things we've done is we've staggered the training to minimize the impact on the number of people that are not serving clients at any given time. In some places we have had dedicated teams that can go in and backfill for client service.
We have been offering overtime to staff if they wish to use what would otherwise be their flextime or flex day to do the work. Certainly, staff have really stepped up to the plate to try and ensure that client service comes first and that it isn't impacted.
Two other things to note. One is that no training is done during cheque-issue weeks, because of course that is an incredibly busy time in offices. We are reviewing the peak highs and lows in terms of service, what times of days staff are most busy — making sure they're actually there for those times and using some of the more slower times for times where we might take people away for training.
C. James: Thanks to the minister.
I just want to dispel a couple of rumours that are out there. I think it's important for clients. I hear rumours of cheques being late because of staff-training issues, and I hear rumours of an office closure — a day's clos-
[ Page 10087 ]
ure so that people can be trained and do a catch-up on the work.
I just wanted to deal with those rumours and put them out there, since they're out there, and have the minister respond to them.
Hon. S. Cadieux: There have been no issues related to cheque issue delays because of this process. If you're referring to a past closure, I'm not…. Okay.
We are anticipating there will be the need for a one-day closure of offices. It's not for training. It's because we have to actually physically shut one system down and turn the other system on and ensure that it's all working properly before we're using it. So we are anticipating that.
As such, we are starting a communications process to ensure that all clients are well aware of that one day that we won't be available, on March 30, because all of the systems won't be available during that time. So we are doing communications through inserts in the cheques, notification through the offices. Whenever people phone, they're being notified of that in advance so that hopefully they will have heard that message a number of times before the 30th of March.
C. James: Will there be some kind of provision, then, for emergency services, people who will need emergencies on that day, who may need emergency grants, those kinds of things? Emergencies don't often happen on schedule, so some kind of process in place for individuals.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The member is right. Emergencies don't happen on a schedule. We are aware of that. There will be a process in place. We will have staff available to deal with emergencies. There will be one phone number that we will have posted and make available to clients ahead of time.
C. James: Just a couple of general questions on the ICM itself. That would be — I have read the ministry material around the fact that this system will be a benefit to clients and workers. I wondered if the minister could give an explanation of that — how she sees, from her perspective, this system benefiting clients and benefiting workers.
Hon. S. Cadieux: As I see it benefiting clients, first off…. I think the first and most obvious thing is that most people who are receiving services from government are receiving services from government in more than one area. At this point in time, even within individual ministries, there are multiple systems being used to track various pieces of information, which is inefficient at best and can lead to the unnecessary reality that, in some cases, information in one system is incorrect.
So individuals are no longer going to be asked for personal information multiple times. It will be in one place, and it will ensure that services are based on up-to-date, comprehensive information, so we can ensure that people are receiving, indeed, the benefits that they should receive.
As well, there's going to be an automated notification function that can help protect the most vulnerable clients who might be dependant upon really timely action in any particular area. The workers can be notified in advance to make sure they're following up in a timely fashion with individuals, especially, who are vulnerable.
I think the reality of the ability of the system being one system to streamline and track information is going to help ensure that people aren't falling through cracks — where information was put into one system, but it didn't make it to the other system, and somebody missed it and that sort of thing. It's going to have better oversight in that regard.
From staff's perspective, I think mostly we're going to…. The most obvious thing is not having to switch between multiple screens and go to multiple sources of information when trying to figure out how best to serve a client, what a client is needing or what the client's current information or address, etc., is. It's going to be all on one screen, and that's going to be more efficient, save them time and frustration in being able to serve that client better right there on the phone or right there in person.
C. James: Could the minister tell me how the system is going to be assessed? What kinds of reviews are going to be done as the system is implemented? I think we all know technology systems often need changes and tweaks and improvements as they go in.
What kind of process will be used to get information from staff, and what kind of process will be used to get information from clients?
Hon. S. Cadieux: On the staff side, both during the training and following implementation we have superusers in each office that are there to provide advice but also to receive feedback from the rest of the users in the office. It then funnels up to the ADM responsible for ICM to build adjustments or improvements into the system on a go-forward basis through the process. Because we're phasing, that gives us an opportunity at each phase to take the lessons learned from the implementation of the phase before and apply those to the next phase. That's been working really well.
As it relates to clients. As I mentioned in some of our earlier discussions yesterday, we are working on developing an engagement strategy around our channel plan — so talking about how we're delivering services: telephone, Internet, in person and so on. In that engagement with clients, that's going to be an opportunity for them, as well, to feed back what their experience is and
[ Page 10088 ]
whether that's positive, negative or whether they have other suggestions.
C. James: I'd just like to turn it over to my colleague from North Cowichan for a couple of questions.
D. Routley: I'd like to ask about the ICM system and what privacy audits have been carried out in her ministry.
Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member will know, there was a full privacy impact assessment for phase 1 that was done. It is posted on the ministry website. It was completed prior to implementation and reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner prior to implementation.
A full privacy impact assessment is in progress for phase 2 as well. The project team has been working right through with staff from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office to ensure that that is meeting all of their concerns or any concerns they might have.
They're meeting regularly with the deputy Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the project is meeting all the expectations. The Privacy Commissioner's office has been working with us right through this project on the design, the build and the implementation as it relates to privacy. They're very confident that it's meeting all requirements and, in fact, improving security and privacy for clients.
D. Routley: Chief Information Officer Dave Nikolejsin began a presentation at a recent privacy forum in Victoria discussing how private sector companies are having to up their privacy protections because of an effort to protect the wallet, in the sense that breaches in credit card companies in banks need to be made up by the institution, that the customer is made whole when there is a privacy breach.
He pointed out that the implications of a privacy breach for a public body are much more severe, serious and deep for the individuals affected. You can't unring the bell once somebody's private information is misused or shared improperly.
I'm wondering if there will be any backward-looking access assessments or audits as to who has been accessing the system. I know that when police information systems are used, there is a capacity to look back and review access.
Hon. S. Cadieux: I was just clarifying that what I thought was right was right, and it is. In fact, the audit trail in terms of who has been looking at what information is built right into the system. I've seen it. It's going to really enhance what we're able to do in regards to tracking who is seeing what data and who has looked at it.
We would invite the member to come to a briefing that is actually scheduled for next week for the member for North Island on ICM and on that specifically. I would be happy to include the member and to have him see that for himself.
D. Routley: I would be very interested in participating if I can make it work with my schedule.
The Privacy Commissioner has pointed out the need to fully describe the details of the architecture of these systems and, as they're being built, that the affected parties and those people who might be served or affected be adequately consulted. What consultations have been made with public bodies or other organizations in the province as to their opinions and views on the privacy implications of the system?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As the builder of the system or the potential users of the system, we've consulted, certainly, with those who will be using the system and with the service providers and so on, but not as it relates to privacy impact. That is an area where we refer or use the CIO and the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we're doing everything we need to do in relation to privacy. Any consultations beyond that, specific to privacy, would be the responsibility of the CIO.
C. James: We can now move on, then, to employment programs — the issue of employment programs and the change in delivery.
As we know, the system change is coming up. It's a big change for service providers, a big change for communities and a big change for clients receiving the supports. I wondered if we could just talk a little bit about some generalities before we get into the specifics around the program — just around who's responsible for overseeing the new system and what kind of reviews will be taking place over the implementation period of the new system.
Hon. S. Cadieux: There are a number of levels of oversight. We have at the operational level, the field level, a team that will be monitoring the performance measures as they relate to the contracts and the individual contractors.
Then at a program level, from a provincial perspective within the ministry, we'll be looking at the performance measures across all the contracts as they come up from the field level with specific attention, of course, to these specialized populations and our ministry clients and whether or not their performance or the outcomes are what we would hope to see across all the contracts, and then recommend any changes to the program designer or such as a result of that.
In addition, we have external panels that we're putting in place to provide external feedback and oversight. That starts with the centre of excellence. It's going to provide
[ Page 10089 ]
research and objective evaluation of the program to the two specialized panels: one, a panel on specialized populations, is specifically being put in place to monitor how well specialized populations are being served under the new model and to recommend any necessary changes; and then an overall program implementation oversight committee that's also external that will have the mandate to look at the overall program.
C. James: I just want to probe a little bit into those specifics, because I think that most people would understand the field monitoring and understand the ministry monitoring, recognizing that those are regular occurrences that should occur for ministry programs and ministry resources. But could the minister talk a little more about these external panels, the centre for excellence, why a centre for excellence was chosen, how they'll be doing the monitoring?
Then, perhaps, after we've got that information, we can talk a little bit more about the two panels that the minister mentioned as well.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The centre for employment excellence will be selected as a result of an RFP that is currently out. We're looking there for an organization that has the capacity to do research on best practices and employment programs — beyond our own employment program, of course, but to recommend best practices and do research related specifically to the implementation of our project and to provide that data and research and evaluation to the specialized panels to assist them in their review of the process and program as it goes forward.
Those two external panels, those two specialized panels, will be appointed at arm's length to government to monitor, like I say, how the program is working for British Columbians. Then both of those panels feed back into the corporate oversight panel. And both of them into the ministry, as well, and into our ability….
We can share with you the governance structure overview that is prepared as part of that RFP. I think that's a lot easier than me explaining it in words.
C. James: Just so I'm clear, the minister said there was an RFP out. The RFP is done now, and the centre of excellence has received that RFP?
Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, the RPF is to create the centre of excellence, to appoint a centre of excellence. It closes March 26, so it'll take some time before that is in place. As well, the advisory panels, as I mentioned…. The posting for those positions has closed, but it will probably be another month or so before they are in place.
C. James: Just a couple of questions around that then. What was the rationale around going outside to an RFP and looking at this kind of independent process? What was the reasoning behind that? What's the budget for this RFP? What's the contract?
And how will people be appointed? The minister said there was an application process out there for people to be appointed to these two independent panels. What's the process for being appointed, and are they appointed by the minister, by the ministry, by government?
Hon. S. Cadieux: This may be a choppy answer. The budget for the centre of excellence is $2 million per year for three years to set up and operate a centre of excellence that relates to the employment program and the rollout, the big change.
We recognize that this is a big change. That's part of the rationale for setting up this external set of advisers and so on, because it's a major change. We made that commitment to the sector to engage external expertise for advice and monitoring, and that's exactly what we're doing.
For the two other panels that I mentioned, those are ministerial appointments. I will make those appointments, but we have asked BRDO to manage that process so that people could just apply if they felt they wished to participate in that and had the expertise to participate in that.
I am looking specifically to ensure that there is good regional representation from around the province, representation from all the specialized populations, and to ensure that we have people who have expertise in the labour market and in the employment sector to do that monitoring work.
C. James: Thank you very much to the minister for that information. I think we'll follow up with some further information. I know we're going to get short on time here. So we'll follow up with some further information around the RFP, the process, because I think those are important questions.
I have a number of MLAs who have specific questions. The minister mentioned earlier the issue of small groups and the worry that specialized services through this process, the populations who've been served by specialized services, will be lost or not get the same service.
I think that's a number of questions that want to be asked. So I'll turn it over to my colleague from Vancouver first, and then we'll ask a couple of questions, recognizing our time.
J. Kwan: I know we have a tight time frame, so I'm going to try and group all my questions into one giant lump. These tie into the services that are specialized.
For example, PEERS is one organization that has lost the contract. They provide specialized services to people exiting the sex trade. Another organization, the
[ Page 10090 ]
Strathcona employment centre, which has been in existence for some 40 years in the community, lost on that contract as well.
SUCCESS is another one which I know the minister is aware of, because she's gone to visit SUCCESS elsewhere and made some sort of commitment — at least according to the Chinese newspapers — around other options for SUCCESS. So I'll be interested in exploring that with the minister.
Lastly, Pathways is another organization in the Downtown Eastside that provides for specific services to the people who face multiple challenges in our community.
So in that context, how will the minister ensure that these specialized populations will be able to access the service that they need? Arguably, they are the people who need the service the most. Historically for this population base, the large service centres, employment centres, do not work for them. The environment is such that it is not conducive for them to get the assistance that they need. Therefore, this model that the government is adopting may very well be counterproductive.
The other question that I want to ask the minister is on the language capacity issue. For people who are immigrants coming to the employment centres needing assistance…. I read in the papers that in the new contract that has been assigned, they will only take clients coming in who have a level 5 of English.
I wonder if that is really the case. If that's not the case, could the minister please clarify for the record on the language capacity? And with these organizations that have now taken the new contract, if they don't have the in-house language capacity, how are they going to meet the requirements of these clients that are coming in — that would be able to break down the language barriers?
I know that I've asked a lot of questions of the minister, and I actually have others that will likely follow. Given the time constraint that exists, I wonder if I could have a briefing with the minister's staff at a different time to collect the information from the minister. Then I can yield the floor to other members who want to ask questions.
R. Chouhan: My question to the minister is about the agricultural workers employment project. Under that project, for the last 15 years the Progressive Intercultural Society, also known as PICS, in Surrey have provided very specialized services to farmworkers regarding training, teaching them about their rights and all the necessary steps that they would like to have.
They have been receiving for 15 years $350,000 under this program so that they could make sure that farmworkers learn about the safety rules, the training they have when they go to work. All of those services were provided in Punjabi. Now they're going to lose this contract at the end of this month.
I would like to ask the minister: could you please clarify? What thinking has gone into in taking this contact away when we have very specialized people who are experts, who have been doing this job for people — women, elderly men, new immigrants — helping and teaching them? Could the minister tell me why that decision was made?
Hon. S. Cadieux: The services that were provided previously will still be provided. They'll just be provided by a new provider. The reality is that in the case the member is referencing, PICS is a service provider under the new contract — not in all of the areas of the province. In some areas of the province other proponents were the winning bidder.
We are convinced that the services will be provided and will be provided in the language required in a culturally sensitive way. That is a requirement of the program — that any of the programs that were previously provided are currently provided in a way that meets the needs of the populations.
N. Simons: The issue around services being provided under the new regime versus the old one — I know we've talked about this issue in Powell River. The previous minister promised that with the redesign, there would be no loss of service. But the community of Powell River is facing the closure of the only drop-in centre, which serves over 100 people per day.
I know the minister has been making some efforts to see how that could be changed. Will the minister continue with those efforts, and what chances are there of maintaining this essential program in Powell River? What chances are there of the minister finding a resolution to that?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member knows, we have a meeting scheduled with Powell River to discuss this further tomorrow. I am committed to continuing to work on this. We do understand that there are unique situations in Powell River and Port Hardy, and we've committed to doing what we can to ensure that there isn't indeed a loss of services.
The reality is that this is a big change, and in some circumstances, that change is uncomfortable for folks. We are, though, especially concerned about specialized populations and some of the most marginalized individuals and the services they receive.
We are confident in the service providers that will be taking shape April 2 and that those services are going to be provided, and provided well, and that they have identified how they are going to do that. But certainly, the external panels that we're putting in place and the extra monitoring that we have put in place for this are
[ Page 10091 ]
specifically to ensure that we are meeting those needs. If we are finding at any point that we're not, we can make course corrections.
N. Macdonald: On the same theme, I start with correspondence with predecessors — July 2, 2010. It goes through letters exchanged September 2, 2010, and December 8, 2010, through into this year. Repeatedly we have been assured by this ministry that we would not see significant changes, in the sense that the programs that were in place on employment services would be there.
You can reference the letters and look at the commitments that were made, but the reality is that phone calls March 7 about the realities on the ground in Kimberley, much less Columbia Valley or any of these other centres…. Everything is gone. The solutions that have been put in place in no way match the promises that there would be something approximate to the level of service that was there.
I'll give you one example. In Kimberley, 280 people in a relatively short period of time are using the centre. I think the period of time is in the last month — right? They would have access to the Internet, to computers. They had access to face-to-face. All of that is gone, and the suggestion is that they can find their way to Cranbrook. The suggestion is that there's a bus that goes twice a week. They could somehow figure out how to go there.
An office that was open, had face-to-face, was used well and allowed people to network has been replaced with essentially nothing in that community. It would be one thing if the minister was saying, "Hey, you're out of luck," just like when you closed the hospital, closed the court and everything else. "You guys are just out of luck in Kimberley."
But for the past two years, as we raise issues, we've been told, "Don't worry. It's all figured out. It's actually going to work for people," and instead, you have people in Kimberley who have been essentially misled about the reality that's going to be there on the ground.
Now, the minister is relatively new to the file. There's an opportunity to set it right. What I would ask from the minister is: are you able to commit to actually looking at what's happening in communities like Kimberley and trying to set it right so that the promises that were made over the past two years somehow align with the reality that is there on the ground?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member knows, this is a significant shift and a significant change in our employment services, which is exactly why we are putting in place the monitoring that we're putting in place and the opportunity for input into that process by external people and why we had a very long process engaging all of the service providers previously and through that RFP.
The reality is that the services that clients are able to access will all still be available. They may be available in a different way than before, but they are still available. Employment services are still available to clients. In different towns, with different service providers, those services may look different, but the entire suite of services will be available to all people no matter where they access WorkBC employment centres.
As it relates specifically to the community that the member is referencing, we're happy to sit down and talk to the member about that and take a look into it and explain what is or is not there and what the change looks like. But all the services for people who want to get back to work are still going to be in place.
C. James: Noting the time, thank you to the minister and thank you to the staff for estimates. I think this will be a piece that we will do follow-up on. There's a great deal of concern around the province. I understand, as the minister said, that change is difficult, but I think we also recognize that there are some grave concerns for small populations of people and distances. I'll do a follow-up with the minister around further questions.
Vote 42: ministry operations, $2,456,780,000 — approved.
Hon. S. Cadieux: I also would like to thank the members opposite for their thoughtful questions and their time. I would like to thank all of the staff that has participated and provided support to me during this process.
With that, I would move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development, and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada