2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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, APRIL 1, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30)

Hon. B. Barisoff

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Fort Steele heritage town

W. McMahon

School uniforms

R. Nijjar

Oral health

J. Weisbeck

Oral Questions

Arrowhead mental health centre

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

World Water Forum in Japan

M. Hunter

Hon. J. Murray

Government action on severe acute respiratory syndrome

R. Stewart

Hon. S. Hawkins

Correctional facility closings

B. Locke

Hon. R. Coleman

Youth speeding prevention

T. Bhullar

Hon. R. Coleman

Workers Compensation Board appeals backlog

B. Lekstrom

Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents

Office of the information and privacy commissioner of British Columbia, service plan, 2003-06

Second Reading of Bills

Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12) (continued)

P. Sahota

P. Wong

A. Hamilton

R. Stewart

G. Trumper

V. Roddick

Hon. R. Coleman

Safety Standards Act (Bill 19)

Hon. G. Abbott

J. MacPhail

Safety Authority Act (Bill 20)

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise

Hon. R. Thorpe

Hon. K. Falcon

R. Harris

R. Hawes

H. Bloy

B. Locke

S. Brice

V. Roddick

K. Johnston

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

Hon. J. Murray

R. Masi

K. Stewart

[ Page 5857 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M.

de Jong: I want to welcome someone back to the Legislature after a bit of an

absence. She worked for a couple of my predecessors, a gentleman by the name of

Bill Ritchie, who served as a minister in a previous government, and my

immediate predecessor, Peter Dueck. Christine Wiebe served as constituent

assistant and ministerial assistant with distinction for 15 years, and I hope

members will make her welcome today.

[1405]

With her

today…. I don't think it is an exaggeration to describe Eugene Reimer as

Abbotsford's greatest athlete — he is a gold medallist — with, as the

Finance minister points out, perhaps one exception, but modesty precludes me

from…. Mr. Reimer is a gold medallist in the Olympics and most recently

chaired the British Columbia Disability Games that were hosted magnificently by

Abbotsford and by the team that he assembled. It's a pleasure to see him here as

well. Please make him welcome.

H. Long:

It really gives me great excitement to rise today in the House and announce

the birth of my newest granddaughter. Yesterday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. my

daughter-in-law Kim, her husband, my son Craig and their two children, McKenna

and Kyle, were blessed with an addition to their family. In Powell River,

weighing in at 7 pounds 13½ ounces, my newest granddaughter, Sawyer Grace Long,

my thirteenth grandchild — and more to come. I'd like to share with this House

and ask them to join me in welcoming my newest granddaughter into this world and

into this province. Thank you very much.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd like to congratulate my colleague from Powell River on the

Sunshine Coast on the birth of his new grandchild. That's wonderful news for

you, I'm certain, and for everybody in Powell River. I also would like to make a

couple of introductions, but it's not about the birth of any children of mine at

this moment.

I have a

couple of people in the gallery today that do just an absolutely stellar job in

the communications shop for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. They

don't have a lot to work with. Robin Rohrmoser and Christine Ash. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Hamilton: Joining us in the House are 28 grade 5 students from View Royal

Elementary School accompanied by their parents and teachers, Ms. Ethelwyn Smith,

an assistant teacher, and Ms. Margie Stewart. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. B.

Barisoff presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move that Bill 30 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Bill 30 proposes a number of amendments to the taxation revenue

statutes administered by the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. These amendments

are made to ensure fairness and equity for taxpayers and to provide efficiencies

in tax and revenue collection processes. In several cases, the changes are

designed to clarify duties and responsibilities under each act and simply to

bring tax treatment in line with federal policies.

This bill

will amend the following statutes: Corporation Capital Tax Act, Income Tax Act,

Land Tax Deferment Act, Mineral Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, School Act, Hotel

Room Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas

Tax Act and Logging Tax Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments

during second reading of this bill.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[1410]

Bill 30

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN

McMahon: I am one of the first to agree that cultural tourism is one of the

great untapped areas of tourism for those who are happy to travel to

destinations to learn about culture and history as opposed to viewing scenery or

taking in sporting events. I have cultural tourism in my riding.

As the East

Kootenay Historical Society will tell you, Fort Steele is a gem in the

province's crown, internationally recognized and broadly supported by the

communities it serves. It showcases our local heritage, and it has a long and

proud history.

[ Page 5858 ]

It is named

in honour of Sam Steele, superintendent of the North West Mounted Police. He was

head of D division, which arrived in 1887 at what was then named Kootenay Post.

He help solve the Kootenay crisis, which was a very serious disagreement between

the white settlers and the local Ktunaxa people over land ownership of Joseph's

Prairie, a Ktunaxa gathering place and the site of present-day Cranbrook.

The dispute

saw nervous settlers petition both the federal and provincial governments for

protection, and thus the presence of the North West Mounted Police. He stayed

for a little more than a year, and today this historical site bears his name.

At one

time, 2,000 people lived at Fort Steele, and a number of businesses prospered.

Much of the fort's history is linked to the development of the province's

railway system. Needless to say, Cranbrook became the centre, and by 1910 Fort

Steele was becoming a ghost town.

Today you

can board the steam train and be transported back in time to an era when the

bellow and rush of escaping steam, the clang of the rails and the call of the

whistle take you to places you will remember forever. Treat yourself to the

experience, a depiction of a real community on the original site at its prime,

1895 to 1905. Visit the shops, the eating establishments and the working

displays. Pan for gold at the Wildhorse Creek historic site. Enter an era when

time moved more leisurely, when life appeared simpler and when the decorative

arts were present in everything from the cast iron range to the blacksmith

toiling under the heat of his labour.

Today I

extend an invitation to you to visit Fort Steele, to enjoy the planned street

dramas that happen around town, bringing the culture of the town to life right

before your very eyes. Remember, whether it's ecotourism, sport tourism or

cultural tourism, the opportunities are endless in the Kootenays.

SCHOOL UNIFORMS

Nijjar: Today I rise to raise a discussion that I believe is of great

importance. I have thoroughly studied the concept of school uniforms, and I have

concluded there is so much value in implementing uniforms or a dress code in our

public school system that it warrants, at the least, a full discussion in our

communities.

In the

United States school uniforms are becoming popular, and 17 different states

permit individual schools or districts to adopt school uniform policies or dress

codes. And why have they implemented uniforms or dress codes? It's because

uniforms make schools safer, increase school attendance, increase grades, reduce

tardiness, reduce violent acts, reduce verbal abuse, reduce vandalism, reduce

sources of conflict, help identify trespassers, erase cultural and economic

differences, and increase school pride. And the lower cost of uniforms saves

parents money.

In Long

Beach school district, in the first year of implementation, overall school crime

decreased by 36 percent, sex offences by 74 percent, fights by 51 percent,

weapons offences by 50 percent, school suspensions by 32 percent and vandalism

by 18 percent. In Norfolk, Virginia, they found absence down 47 percent,

throwing objects down 68 percent and fighting down 38 percent. Schools in

Chicago, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York and Seattle have all

made similar claims.

These

achievements follow the stated goals of the Ministry of Education's three-year

service plan and the safe schools task force, which is to improve student

outcomes and create a safe learning environment.

I have

spoken with many, many people throughout British Columbia who support this. I

would prefer the full implementation of school uniforms in legislation from this

House. But if this cannot happen, then I plan to work with the Minister of

Education to create clear regulations or a framework for parents to be able to

bring about uniforms in their neighbourhoods.

ORAL HEALTH

Weisbeck: Today is a very, very special day. Not only is it the beginning of

Oral Health Month, but the tooth fairy arrived in the building this morning. I'm

sure the Finance minister would love to have seen a couple of billion dollars

underneath his pillow, but the tooth fairy did deliver dental kits to all the

members. If anyone needs any help in brushing and flossing, I'm sure I could

give you a hand in that department.

[1415]

My thanks

to the Association of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia for supplying the kits

and having the tooth fairy deliver them. The association is responsible for

promoting and supporting the interests of its 2,800 members. This year for Oral

Health Month the association is launching the first-ever provincewide dental

outreach program, called Community Dental Day, on Tuesday, April 29, 2003. More

than 155 volunteer dentists around the province will be treating underprivileged

adults in need of urgent dental care, free of charge. This program is available

to low-income working adults who do not have a basic dental plan. It is

estimated that the program will offer dental relief to more than 750 adult

patients provincewide. Urgent treatment will include services such as fillings

and extractions. To identify low-income adult patients requiring dental

treatment, the association is working in conjunction with the Salvation Army and

public health in nearly 40 communities throughout the province.

Our thanks

and congratulations to the dentists of B.C. for the professional services they

provide in maintaining the health of all British Columbians.

Oral Questions

ARROWHEAD MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

MacPhail: Just a note to the good member: I have an overactive gag reflex

that I may need help with later on.

[ Page 5859 ]

Mr.

Speaker, it's April Fool's Day, and as Yogi Berra said, it's déjà vu all over

again. I was asking these very same questions a year ago. The Minister of State

for Mental Health is on record saying he won't tolerate cuts to the mental

health services, and that's cold comfort to the mental health patients on the

Sunshine Coast who have seen their services cut to the bone. When I raised this

last year at this same time, the Minister of State for Mental Health denied that

that was going to happen. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health explain to

the patients in Sechelt why the Arrowhead drop-in centre for mental health

patients will be forced to close its doors in a few weeks?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Over the last 21 months we have made tremendous progress in mental

health in this province. Issues of mental health have been raised across the

government in the ministries and health authorities and in the business

community. We are bringing patients home. We are replacing outdated facilities

with modern, homelike facilities across the province. We are building….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: We are challenging the status quo, and we are ensuring that mental

health achieves equal status in health care in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: If this Minister of State for Mental Health gives that same answer

again, he should actually have to resign from his job. It is pathetic what his

answers are and how little he understands how he's abandoning people with mental

illnesses. The B.C. Schizophrenia Society…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …is imploring…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …the minister to stop this cut and keep the Arrowhead centre

open. They say centres like this one are critical to servicing mental health

patients and should be considered part of the core services funded by mental

health. I've been there. They're right about that.

Before this

minister eliminated its budget, the Arrowhead centre in Sechelt provided meals

and activities. It operated an extensive volunteer program and employed an

advocate. Now those vital programs are gone, and the centre's doors are about to

close.

Will the

Minister of State for Mental Health live up to the promise he made directly to

the patients in Sechelt and order the health authority to restore this centre's

small grant and the vital services it provides?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The only party who betrayed mental health was the NDP. We made a

promise during the campaign to fully fund and implement the mental health plan.

We have done that.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1420]

Hon. G.

Cheema: We are ensuring that the best practices in mental health are made

available to health authorities, service providers, clinicians, families and

consumers. We have merged mental health and addiction to better serve our

patients. We are implementing provincial depression strategy and

depression-anxiety disorder strategy, the two most prevalent diseases which were

ignored by the NDP.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer as well as the

question.

Please

continue.

Hon. G.

Cheema: We are implementing Canada's first comprehensive provincial youth

and child mental health plan. We are working closely with all the stakeholder

organizations in this province. And finally, we are keeping politics out of the

health care system.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: You know, it is almost embarrassing to ask these questions when

this minister is the Minister of State for Mental Health. Arrowhead drop-in

centre, Sechelt…. Thank God someone is standing up to ask these questions.

This

minister is closing…. He stands up and gives a little message box that he

can't even do without reading it. Given that the minister's sole responsibility

is to mental health patients…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …it's astonishing that he can't even give the people of

Arrowhead a straight answer. They've tried talking to their local MLA; they

haven't been able to get a meeting. They've tried lobbying the minister, but

they've had dead silence. Now they are desperate. It's not like these patients

can go somewhere

[ Page 5860 ]

else. For mental health patients throughout the interior and the coast, these

services are the only lifeline.

The

Attorney General likes to talk about a court for people with mental illness. The

Minister of State for Mental Health is cutting the services.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: Can the minister explain to them why mental health patients who

live in the interior and on the coast don't count in his government's bogus

heartlands strategy?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The only embarrassment for mental health is the NDP. This member,

when she was the Minister of Health, made the promise to fully fund and

implement the mental health plan. That plan was never approved by the Treasury

Board.

We made the

promise to implement the mental health plan, and we have done that. We are

spending an additional $138 million to bring patients home. We are building

homelike facilities across the province.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: We are providing compassionate care which is based on evidence-based

practices. We are the only province in the whole country where there is one

minister responsible for mental health. We are the only province in the whole

country where we are building capacity. We are not only deinstitutionalizing,

but we are bringing patients home. We are building capacities. We are providing

compassionate care. The NDP was the betrayer of the mental health system in this

province.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

WORLD WATER FORUM IN JAPAN

Hunter: Water quality is an issue of great concern to people around this

province. I understand the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection recently

returned from a trip to Japan where she represented Canada as president of the

Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment at the World Water Forum.

Could the

minister tell the House what was discussed at the forum and what benefits

British Columbians might expect from her trip?

Hon. J.

Murray: At the third World Water Forum, ministers from countries around the

world talked about drinking water quality, talked about ecosystem protection and

pollution prevention, talked about agriculture and water, and flood management.

It was very instructive how common some of the issues were around the world.

[1425]

As the

member mentioned, I was there as the president of the Canadian Council of

Ministers of Environment, representing the Canadian provinces and territories.

But there were definitely benefits for British Columbia. I went with an

executive of the ministry responsible for water quality, and so the executive

and I were able to bring back the ideas, the contacts with people and the best

practices and policies for protecting water quality here in British Columbia.

The last

point I wanted to make was that I had the personal goal of bringing back

information…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …that will assist us in having a living rivers strategy that

really contributes to healthy communities and healthy watersheds right across

the province.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME

Stewart: There's a great deal of concern across British Columbia about the

SARS outbreak. Many people are concerned about how this illness can affect them,

their families and their children. I ask the Minister of Health Planning if she

can update us on what steps the government is taking to deal with the SARS

outbreak in British Columbia.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Our top priority certainly is to ensure public health and safety,

and the government continues to monitor the situation very closely. To that end,

the deputy provincial health officer gave a technical briefing this morning with

health authorities and medical health officers there.

At this

time, we currently have two probable cases and 12 suspect cases. At this time,

as well, the cause remains unknown. We do know that national and international

lab testing and collaborative work is ongoing. We've taken a number of steps to

prevent further spread of SARS and to protect patients, our health professionals

and certainly the public.

Every

suspect and probable case in B.C. is being isolated immediately to prevent

further spread. The ministry has identified isolation rooms in hospitals across

the province to ensure we have capacity to respond to any increase in cases. The

provincial health officer sent a letter to 4,000 doctors across the province

last week to make sure that they're aware of the signs and symptoms, and they

know to act quickly.

Any patient

in the province who seeks medical attention for a fever and has travelled to

affected areas or has had contact with another SARS case is being medically

screened. To make sure that our emergency rooms aren't being overwhelmed,

Vancouver coastal

[ Page 5861 ]

health authority is setting up a separate SARS clinic, and that should happen

this week.

Certainly,

our medical health officers across the province are communicating with schools,

with school boards, with day cares and with other health facilities to make sure

that kids are being screened. If they show symptoms, they are kept at home. At

this time, it is not necessary to close schools. We don't need to close

hospitals, and we certainly don't need to restrict visitors from hospitals.

That's what the provincial health officer is advising.

We're

stepping up quarantine officers at the Vancouver Airport to screen people. We

are going to do everything that we can on the advice of our provincial health

officer.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CLOSINGS

Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. We know that jails are an

essential part of our justice system. If we are to keep our communities safe, we

must have the facilities to incarcerate criminals. I know from the Solicitor

General's service plan that a number of provincial jails have been closed. I

have heard that the provincial jails are becoming too crowded to accept more

offenders. Many of my constituents are concerned about the effect this may have

on sentencing criminals.

Can the

Solicitor General tell us whether there is sufficient capacity in provincial

correctional facilities to accommodate offenders receiving provincial jail

sentences?

Hon. R.

Coleman: When we took over as government, we did a review of the

correctional system in British Columbia. What we found was that we had a number

of facilities that were open custody, which were running as low as 33 percent

capacity, and our other closed custody facilities were running below capacity.

What we did

was get out of the open custody facilities simply because we weren't being sent

offenders that would actually fit that continuum of correctional centre, and we

moved our people into the closed custody facilities. As a result of that, we

were able to rationalize our prisons, but at the same time we actually do still

have capacity in our jails and are in a position to handle whatever may come

along.

[1430]

YOUTH SPEEDING PREVENTION

Bhullar: Given the death of so many young people, my question is to the

Solicitor General. These deaths in speeding vehicles and a very tragic death

last week in the member from Cloverdale's constituency…. Has the Solicitor

General considered regulating the amount of horsepower for the vehicles that

young people operate? Put simply, if you give them high-powered vehicles, they

are going to test the speed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The one thing we've found, as we've looked at these accidents that

have taken place in British Columbia, is it has not been the increase in

horsepower that's been added onto the vehicles. It has been the problem that

it's actually the behaviour of the driver in the vehicle that exists today.

As the

member knows, last year we moved so that we could double the penalty points for

people involved in racing. We put in place the fact that we could seize a

vehicle on the side of the road that was involved in the activity and also made

it possible for the superintendent of motor vehicles to suspend a driver's

licence for up to two years for that offence. We are now looking at the entire

graduated licence program, and some recommendations should be coming forward

shortly with regard to the length of learners' permits, passengers in vehicles

and some of the restrictions with regard to new drivers. We think that, combined

with some education, will continue to push back at this issue, and we'll

continue to work on whatever tools police and communities ask us to work on.

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD

APPEALS BACKLOG

Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour.

The minister recently announced changes to the Workers Compensation Board

appeals process. However, there are 20,000 appeals backlogged. Can the Minister

of Skills Development and Labour assure us that the people will have their

appeals dealt with in a timely manner?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Indeed, there are actually some 22,000 backlogged appeals in the

system today, and the reworking of the whole Workers Compensation Appeal

Tribunal was done in an effort to be able to give timely and quality decisions

so that people weren't in that process for some three to five years, as has been

the case to this point. Our goal is to shorten that system down to 180 days so

that people can get on with their lives and not be involved in a system that

has, in some cases, been more debilitating than the actual injury they first

received.

The fact of

the matter is that with the 22,000…. I would just like to put that into

context. There's over a million appealable decisions that take place for WCB per

year. We've brought on extra staff for these 22,000 cases that are before the

appeal tribunal now, and the goal is to have all of that dealt with over the

course of the next two years.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the service plan,

2003-06, for the office of the information and privacy commissioner for British

Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members we'll be

[ Page 5862 ]

discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Competition, Science and

Enterprise, followed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In this

chamber, I call second reading of Bill 12.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Sahota: I'm proud to rise in the House to speak to Bill 12, the Police

Amendment Act, 2003. I want to congratulate the minister for bringing in this

legislation, because I believe it marks an extraordinary shift in law

enforcement in British Columbia. This legislation will give our policing

agencies the ability to better communicate with authorities in other

jurisdictions and share information in real time.

Most of our

police forces today use different databases that are not in real time, and the

links between various police detachments are missing. The police records

information management environment is the first program of its kind in Canada.

It will integrate all of the provincial police forces onto one database. This

system has been successfully piloted in three lower mainland communities —

Richmond, Port Moody and Vancouver — and it is expected to be in place

provincewide by 2004.

I know, for

example, that in my community of Burnaby, the RCMP is currently not on this

system. Most of the cars have a mobile workstation, but they're not connected to

other jurisdictions. I recently spoke to the Burnaby RCMP superintendent, and he

advised me that he's very much looking forward to a tool that will break the

silos that exist today when it comes to communicating between detachments.

Bill 12

provides our crime-fighting agencies with the tools they need to crack down on

crime in our communities and to break down the borders of crime. With the PRIME

network, when a crime is committed in one jurisdiction, the information can be

shared with all the neighbouring communities and across the province within

minutes. This will be very important in a wide range of criminal activity,

including auto theft, home invasions and child abductions.

Police will

be able to load that information into the system and share it with the entire

province in a matter of minutes. This sharing of information will also benefit

law enforcement officers in recognizing patterns with crimes that might take

place in different parts of the province. This will lead to a better chance of

cracking cases where the information may not have been available in the past. I

want to thank the Solicitor General for arming our policing agencies with this

new law enforcement tool.

P. Wong:

I'm pleased to rise in this House today to respond to Bill 12. This is a very

important piece of legislation that will benefit all British Columbians. Our

communities will be safer, and police will have the resources they need to work

collaboratively and more effectively. In my riding, crime is a big issue.

Residents and store owners are telling me that things are getting worse and that

crime is negatively impacting their businesses and neighbourhoods.

As I have

noted before, my constituents are a very proactive group, often organizing

groups to tackle problems within their community. Two such groups, Dickens and

Mountain View, consist of a number of concerned citizens that work together and

patrol the streets at night. They assist the police by identifying problem areas

and reporting them to local law enforcement.

I commend

the actions of these groups and am greatly looking forward to the amended Police

Act and PRIME, the police records information management environment, both of

which will facilitate and enhance law enforcement activities. This bill will

have a very important and immediate impact in my riding and throughout the

province. PRIME is certainly a Canadian technology that all Canadians are proud

of.

recognized that we had an information problem in the past. Conventional police

investigation methods are slow and inefficient, and we needed to find a solution

to re-engineer police activities and use technology to streamline procedures and

speed up processes. Previously, work flow in the police department was

time-consuming, tedious and frustrating for all involved. Information was

frequently incomplete and ripe for mistakes.

[1440]

Now

officers can query the central police computers about licence plates or suspects

directly from the patrol car. The result is a reduced workload for computer

operators at the station and better information in the field. It's just like the

officers have a mobile office right with them inside the car.

There are

many successful stories in many parts of Canada including London, Ontario, and

Fredericton, New Brunswick. I'm glad to hear that with this newest weapon that

police can use in the high-tech arsenal against crime, we'll be able to put more

police officers on the street. Vancouver police officer White said: "It is

an outstanding system, and we can do things now that we could never have done

before."

The Premier

has the vision to establish the technology council and an e-government to

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its operation. This program will

serve as another successful story in a new era that we have put forward in the

government. I therefore fully support Bill 12.

Hamilton: I also rise in support of Bill 12 and would like to thank the

Solicitor General for making PRIME available to every community in B.C. —

municipal and RCMP.

I'd

like to talk for a minute about my personal experiences, having served

approximately 31 years in the Esquimalt police department. I can talk about the

change in technology and how quickly — and sometimes in our minds how slowly

— it has progressed.

[ Page 5863 ]

When I first joined the force, I can remember talking to my colleagues at the

time, who had been there for several years before me. They spoke about how, when

they wanted to get hold of a police officer, they would go outside and they

would pull a switch. That would make all the lights in the municipality blink,

and that meant the police officer had to report back to the police station

because there was a call.

When I

joined, we had the luxury of being a little bit ahead of that.

Some

Hon. Members: Not much, though.

Hamilton: Not much, but we had radios in the cars, and we had a radio at the

station, so we could at least speak to each other. How we did our data and how

we did our checks with a suspect was called an L&M card, and what that meant

was a location and movement card. If we saw somebody who was acting suspiciously

— let's say in a warehouse area — we would check that person, write up all

the particulars on a card and file it. Well, of course trying to find those

cards when there's only one person in the office and we have no communication

— we're out in the car — was a little bit difficult at the time. You can see

we've progressed a long way with the advent of PRIME.

can also relate several experiences as to why PRIME for police officers would be

very important. I can remember a personal episode where I was on patrol with one

of my colleagues, and we spotted this individual who was known to us. He was

acting suspiciously, in my mind, so I said: "Let's check him out and see

what he's up to." So we did that, and everything was fine. We didn't have

any computers, as I said — just a radio — and we couldn't talk to our

neighbouring police department. About half an hour later we received a call from

a neighbouring police department. They gave us a description of an individual

who had just committed an armed robbery in their area. We realized really

quickly from the description that it was the person we had just checked. That

could have had tragic circumstances for myself and my colleagues and the

citizens if he had had a weapon. With no knowledge of what had transpired, it

could have been very tragic. PRIME, with the ability to connect all the

vehicles, will go a long way to erasing that situation.

As you can

see, PRIME is not only a matter of technology. It's also a matter of safety to

the police community. It also goes to checking suspects, where we would check

the suspect just because he was acting suspiciously or because he was near a

vehicle and we wanted to find out who it was. We would do a check on that

person. Unfortunately, we had no form of ID, because, again, the information

that we got on the computers that we had at the time — because now we've got

computers…. We didn't really have a lot of information, because it was only

local computers. We couldn't even access the files of any other departments.

[1445]

As I've

said, PRIME certainly will assist us in giving police officers information that

could potentially save their lives or the lives of others. As the Solicitor

General has said before, only the bad guys won't like this. But they don't have

boundaries. Why should the police? I've spoken with the Victoria police chief

and many of my former colleagues, who are also very excited, supportive and

appreciative of this legislation.

Stewart: I want to thank my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, who was very

careful and deliberate in the way in which he explained how the advent of

electric lights affected his work in the early days. [Laughter.]

I also want

to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I want to thank

him for this bill. I want to thank him for the way in which he has tackled the

issue of public safety and the issue of our police forces with such interest and

with such determination, because my constituents want them there. They want our

police forces there to ensure our safety. They want our police forces there to

enforce our laws, and they want them safe. We want them there, and we want them

safe.

This bill

will move us a lot forward, as the previous speaker mentioned very eloquently

— and with an outstanding example of how this bill and PRIME will help improve

the safety of officers as well as the enforcement of laws and the ability of our

police forces to protect the citizens of our communities. We need to ensure that

our police forces have the tools to proceed in the best way they can in

enforcing law and in protecting our citizens.

I rise

today to support this bill with every ounce of enthusiasm I can, because we must

provide our police forces with the tools and the technology that's available to

make certain they can achieve the results we hope they will achieve and they can

do it as safely as possible for them and their families. I thank the minister,

and I support this bill.

Trumper: I rise briefly to support this bill. Having been in the municipal

world of local government for many years, knowing how costly policing is to

communities and knowing the issues we've had to deal with over the years,

anything that makes the job for policing easier is a great advantage.

I come from

an area that only has one road in and one road out. It has always been deemed

that we used to miss a lot of the crime many years ago, because it was

difficult. If you had come from outside into the valley and wanted to get out

with whatever you had taken, quite often there might be a roadblock. We always

seemed to miss that curve that used to take place on the east side of Vancouver

Island. As the years have gone by and transportation comes so much easier, and

people are able to get around much more by all sorts of means, the crime level

in our area certainly has risen — be it for small crime, B and Es…. We have

the same issues as any community has, but in a micro sense.

At one

time, as some of you know, I was the coroner for 18 years on the west coast. I

can think specifically of a particular case that, at the time, was dealt

[ Page 5864 ]

with, and it was a very sad case of what had taken place. If there had been

better communication at that time between various police detachments right

through the province, who knows? We might not have been faced with this very sad

incident.

[1450]

Today, with

the new technology that's taking place, it is going to make it so much easier

for our police forces — be they municipal, the RCMP or provincial policing —

to keep track and be able to get the information that quickly when an incident

occurs. It may well prevent sad incidents, another crime taking place in another

community, because the police have got that information at their fingertips.

We have

progressed a long way in communications. I know that over the last ten years and

the last five years, the communications have improved so much. Whatever we can

do to make this a safer place for the citizens of British Columbia, whatever we

can do to make the job for the police officers a little easier — and a little

safer, I might add — then we should take every advantage of making sure they

have the best equipment available and the best communications systems available

to enable them to do their job. For that reason, I certainly support this.

Roddick: As other members have already noted, the bill currently before this

House promises to revolutionize policing throughout British Columbia and to

ensure that all the police departments and detachments can easily cooperate to

fight crime more effectively.

As was

discussed with very interested Delta municipal councillors at this past year's

UBCM convention, by expanding the police records and information management

environment, every municipal police department and RCMP detachment in this

province will be connected through an on-line shared communication system known

as PRIME-BC. The innovative use of this technology will significantly modernize

the way law enforcement officials operate in British Columbia. As it stands now,

police departments and detachments across this province use a variety of

computer systems and databases. The proposed amendments to the Police Act will

make sure that crime gang members, thieves or street racers cannot elude the

police in one city by simply crossing the county line, so to speak, where law

enforcement may use a less up-to-date computer system or database.

constituents in Delta South will be especially enthusiastic about PRIME-BC

because our community is one of only 12 municipalities in this province with its

own police force. I'll be the first to say that the Delta police department is

one of the very best policing outfits in B.C., and this program will make them

even better. PRIME-BC will help law enforcers make the streets safer for the

many seniors and other vulnerable groups living and working throughout the

province and in Delta South.

This bill

reflects this government's commitment to uniting community leaders, MLAs, law

enforcement experts and others in pursuit of better ways to prevent and combat

crime. It will make our communities safer, modernize our police forces and

ensure that policing in British Columbia continues to be the envy of police

forces around the world.

PRIME-BC is

what law enforcers in this province want. It's what they are asking for. It's

what they deserve. This government is enhancing public safety by making sure

that police forces in Delta and throughout B.C. have the tools they need to keep

our communities safe.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Thank you to the members of our cabinet and caucus that have spoken

on this bill in the last little while as we've had this debate on different

sessions, on different days.

This is

really about a Premier with a vision for public safety in British Columbia, one

that is committed to safer streets and safer communities in the province by

taking that leadership and passing it down through the cabinet and the caucus

and getting to where we do something that's actually pretty special for policing

in the province.

[1455]

As we go

through this process with PRIME, it becomes readily apparent that there are

other tools that communities need in order to fight crime. We are going to have

our dialogue on crime to deal with that and to start to reinvigorate the

process, where we will talk about things like sentencing, incarceration, fines,

seizure of assets and whatever we need to do in order to fight back against some

of the real issues that our police and law enforcement are facing in today's

criminal system.

The other

day I went to the training centre for PRIME as we get ready to launch it and

train people on the lower Island of British Columbia. It was really something to

sit there with the law enforcement officers that are actually starting to do the

training, both for dispatch and for members of the police forces, as we start to

bring this system into play on the lower Island and throughout the rest of

British Columbia.

One of the

incidents that was described to me as an example as we showed it was an incident

where there was a family dispute at a residence in an area of Esquimalt on the

lower Island. The dispatcher was able to bring up the history of the residents

so that they could tell the police officer, as they went to the residence, what

the history of the residents and the dangers were, whether there was any type of

a protection order or other type of order against anybody that may be involved

in the family dispute at that location. They were able to geomap it in such a

way that they could actually punch in the address and bring up a map of the

community and show where the location of the residence was in the community and

give instructions, if necessary, to the law enforcement officer on the way, to

tell them exactly how to get there or the best location to come in from.

In addition

to that, as that information was going through, criminal-record checks relative

to anybody that had ever had a history at the residence were also

[ Page 5865 ]

able to be conveyed out to the officer both electronically and through the

dispatch. As we got closer to the incident, if there was any type of situation

which would require any type of ability to come to the residence, we could

actually zone in a map and pick the exact residence out in the neighbourhood to

give the officer the ins and outs of alleyways, shrubbery and the location of

the residence or the scene that they were going to so that they would be better

prepared when they arrived at the scene. All of this was being done in a matter

of seconds in real time to the officer in the car in the demonstration and to

the people at dispatch.

Without us

taking leadership in this province to say that one system for that type of use

for police will be the only system that we will have in this province for

information management for policing, we would be failing, at the utmost, our

job. It is not acceptable that some community might think that tomorrow it is

going to opt out of PRIME and have its own system.

That is why

this legislation is before the House today. It is so that we make it clear, in

law, that one information management system is there for all police forces in

the province of British Columbia, without exception, and that this system will

reintegrate, across the lines of communication, all information management

environments and make it possible for our law enforcement community to be more

efficient and to do their jobs in a manner that is befitting of their commitment

to the safety of our communities.

Without an

integrated system, there would be a lack of timely and accurate information,

often making effective policing difficult. In addition, there is currently no

ability to conduct crime analysis to identify trends or types of problems within

and among communities. This kind of analysis allows us to actually deal with

crime where it is statistically as we overlook an area of the province to try

and deal with particular concerns we have, whether it be in regular break and

enters, drugs or things like auto theft.

We need the

statistical information so that we have that information centrally, so that we

can do the job properly. We have to have that multi-jurisdictional information

shared by police and other justice partners so that our law enforcement

community can do the job we ask them to do every day. PRIME is going to solve

many of the current problems inherent in current policing information

environments. It is also going to improve the basis for effective communication.

As we roll

PRIME out, it will also hook directly into the national sex offender registry,

and it's already hooked into CPIC as we go forward, so that we'll actually be

able to use it on a national basis for statistical analysis in crime-fighting

and trends. It is so important that we have this information for police to be

able to let them do the job that we're asking them to do.

[1500]

The

amendments to the act will provide the police two core elements in support of

PRIME. These are: (1) the function of evaluating compliance respecting the

information management system is given to the director of police services and

(2) the requirement of law enforcement services to use and pay for the

information management system.

Today there

are a variety of information and record management systems in policing that all

cost about $300 to $500 per year, per officer. This system will be effectively

the same amount of money as we go forward on an annual basis — about $300 to

$500 per officer. The difference is, of course, that we are providing the

legislative framework, and we're leading the initiative by putting the money

forward for the capital and developmental costs across the province to get the

information and the system up and running to the roadside.

The

shared-resource model will split the costs. It allows us to actually rationalize

this so it works for all communities in British Columbia. We've worked closely

with our other justice partners — including the criminal justice branch, the

court services branch, the Attorney General's corrections branch and also the

joint information technology service divisions of the two ministries — to

coordinate development to PRIME and JUSTIN, which is a system that will load

down all the information from the court system into PRIME so that we can

schedule officers, arrange trials and know what types of orders are coming to

the court system in real time, so that we can deal with the examples I explained

earlier in my second reading debate with regard to how we could transition this

information.

All police

agencies in British Columbia, the RCMP and independent municipal departments are

represented on the PRIME steering committee and working groups. The B.C.

Association of Chiefs of Police and the British Columbia Association of Police

Boards have been involved in discussions on the benefits of PRIME and are all

looking forward to its implementation.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

With PRIME

we are ready for the future. We are ready to link our information system with

those of other police forces in Canada and even internationally. But most

importantly, we will be the only jurisdiction I can find that is on one singular

information management environment for all our police in the province — no

borders, no silos, no breakdown in information. Real statistical information for

fighting crime. The ability to actually plan personnel to fight the issues that

we're seeing in communities today.

As the

Solicitor General, I'm responsible for ensuring adequate and effective policing.

I'm pleased with the implementation of PRIME, which will enhance the

capabilities of police forces in British Columbia to deliver on this mandate.

These

amendments to the Police Act and the implementation of PRIME will greatly assist

in meeting the new-era commitment of ensuring that all laws are equally applied

and in force for all British Columbians, and our strategic objective of safer

streets and schools in every community.

As I've

watched this project evolve, I am more and more convinced. The more I talk to

law enforcement

[ Page 5866 ]

officers on the street and at senior and middle management levels, I get the

same thing back. This is way overdue. This is groundbreaking. It's high time

some jurisdiction actually took the leadership to have one singular information

management environment for policing in a jurisdiction. What we will show to the

world is how integration of information across borders by policing and constant

communication on a regular basis without silos will change how policing can be

managed and structured, and can fight crime in our communities.

I am pretty

proud of Bill 12, as are the members of this House. With pride, I move second

reading of the bill.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12,

Police Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 19.

SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

Hon. G.

Abbott: It is my pleasure to move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

I am

pleased to present Bill 19, the Safety Standards Act, for second reading. A

major review over the past ten years made it clear that current public safety

legislation is cumbersome and perpetuates a system that is not sustainable.

[1505]

Now, ten

years is a long time in anyone's life, and I was quite amazed, actually, when I

heard from staff that this piece of legislation had been ten years in the

making. In fact, I guess the process was launched when former Premier Mike

Harcourt was still the Premier of British Columbia. So it goes back a ways. I

think that the product of a lot of attention has produced a very good act here.

We've

learned that, over time, the safety systems become unresponsive and inflexible

for contemporary commercial, industrial and institutional operations. That

existing legislation resulted in inconsistent approaches to regulatory practices

and in concerns for the future of public safety. In addition, factors like

population growth, changes in technology and cost increases made it difficult to

deliver timely and appropriate service using traditional methods.

With this

legislation we can sustain and improve British Columbia's level of public safety

by, first of all, combining safety legislation into this one act to make the

terminology clear and the requirements consistent. As well, this legislation

will provide uniform, provincewide standards across jurisdictions, increasing

flexibility for field safety representatives and qualified workers and allowing

for increased participation of both affected stakeholders and local government.

This

legislation ensures a sustainable safety system with responsible governance,

clear accountability and an enhanced level of public safety. It provides for a

stable and predictable safety service for those who are regulated. The system

will have flexible regulations and be adaptable to technical changes, be

responsive to client needs and, very importantly, be cost effective.

practical terms, this legislation makes possible a standardized approach across

four technical disciplines: boiler, electrical, elevating devices and gas

safety. It provides effective enforcement tools that level the playing field for

responsible operators while at the same time reducing regulatory intrusion and

discouraging non-compliance.

It provides

for delegation of the administration of the act's service delivery provisions to

a safety authority and voluntarily to local governments, some of which are

already playing this administrative role. Less red tape and a significant

reduction in regulation, as well, are the benefits of this legislation, moving

us from prescriptive regulation to objective-based codes and standards.

This

legislation supports our new-era commitments to streamline regulations and

enhance public safety. I want to salute the members of the safety engineering

staff of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for, I think, an excellent

and very extensive consultation process that they have undertaken. I thank the

many dedicated people in business, industry, labour, associations and government

who contributed their time and effort to the consultation process.

I am

confident that this act and accompanying regulations will provide a high level

of safety for the citizens of this province for years to come. It will make

British Columbia a leader in innovative, sustainable safety service delivery.

Mr.

Speaker, I urge all members of this House to support second reading of Bill 19.

MacPhail: Bill 19, Safety Standards Act, repeals the Electrical Safety Act,

the Elevating Devices Safety Act, the Gas Safety Act, the Power Engineers and

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act and also sections of the Railway Act. It

replaces all of those five with this Safety Standards Act.

[1510]

Yes, the

minister is correct. Changes have been advocated in this area for over ten

years. Perhaps if he checks, some of the first advocates for change actually

went back to 1983, when many industry leaders were looking to privatize aspects

of all of these important safety standards. I remember a very long-serving

deputy minister, who had served through at least three different governments,

saying to me when I first became a cabinet minister: "Beware of the

left-hand drawer of the senior bureaucrat in your ministry." I said:

"What do you mean?" He said: "The deputy min-

[ Page 5867 ]

ister always has a left-hand drawer full of legislation that he or she wants

to get through, which is of importance only to that person."

I've noted,

watching this government bring through changes that have been examined by a

government of which I had been part and rejected, that this government embraces

those with wholehearted support. I've watched that. This government likes to

say: "Well, you, the NDP, thought you were going to do this." I smile

and say: "Oh yeah. Somebody asked us to look at doing this, and a cabinet

submission was brought forward. We examined it. We talked about it in caucus,

and we rejected it."

The

difference between that government and this government is that anything that

gets them out of the business of being responsible for anything, this government

embraces. Although it has been in the works for more than ten years — almost

20 years — there are industry stakeholders with whom I have been in touch, who

have actually called here. They feel that the bill is incomplete. They have been

told, though, that the ministry will sort out the problems later.

It's on

that basis that I wish to address this legislation. Of course, the minister

himself acknowledges there is work still to be done in regulations. However, the

regulations are nowhere to be found, and now matters will be determined by

policy rather than being contained in the legislation itself. I have been asked

to express concerns about those matters, and I have those concerns myself.

The five

pieces of legislation that are being repealed are outdated, but it's important

not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those pieces of legislation have

been outdated by technological advances and Building Code changes and by an

evolving process of which level of government is responsible for what aspect of

safety. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that all the matters contained in those

five pieces of legislation can simply be thrown out.

This piece

of legislation is fundamentally important in securing the safety of all British

Columbians, and it's essential that the ministry continue its consultation

process with the concerned stakeholders. They have consulted, but it needs to

continue. It will be up to the minister to defend this against these accusations

at committee stage, because there will be many questions. What I think the

ministry has failed to do, though, is listen to the feedback from that public

consultation.

Many

workers, many contractors still have serious reservations about some of the

changes contained in the legislation, and they're worried that the government is

simply pushing it through in this session with the mentality of: "Oh, don't

worry. We'll fix the problems later." Well, I don't think that when matters

of such import are being addressed by this legislation — the safety of

everyone in this province — we can afford to have such a laissez-faire

attitude about safety. If there are serious concerns that are still being raised

in regard to this piece of legislation, they must be taken into account before

the legislation comes into effect.

As I've

said, the legislation replaces or changes five previous pieces of legislation.

It does propose to create a stand-alone agency that will bear the responsibility

of ensuring and regulating safety standards in British Columbia. It is my view

and the view of many others that after this legislation was tabled, this

government is downloading the costs and responsibilities to independent agencies

that are, by definition, less accountable to the public and less transparent in

their powers and decision-making.

[1515]

The new

piece of legislation we're discussing today, the Safety Standards Act, creates

the stand-alone, non-profit agency that is now not accountable to the public.

The changes made through the Safety Standards Act will require more

recordkeeping, more due diligence and assumption of liability by individual

workers while the government steps back into a monitoring role. Those are

changes that concern me.

The

government is trying to insulate itself from the responsibility that stems from

safety regulations under the guise of providing more flexibility. We heard that

word from the minister in his opening remarks — more flexibility for industry.

In reality, the government is simply downloading responsibility for the safety

of British Columbians to municipalities, to an arm's-length, non-profit

organization and to individual contractors themselves. As a consequence, the

level of safety in British Columbia has the potential to decline.

As I

mentioned, municipalities will be particularly hard hit by this legislation. A

large responsibility is being downloaded onto municipalities, and they may not

be willing to shoulder the load. Liabilities will be huge for cities, and so

they may decide simply to wash their hands of the whole exercise by making

individual contractors responsible for the self-regulation. Without a properly

regulated safety inspection, people will not be aware that anything has gone

wrong, I fear, until it is too late.

The

proposed legislation will also raise monetary penalties and fines, and some

would say: "Good." The fines and penalties are being raised to

$100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for companies. Raising fines for safety is

a good idea. It's a fine idea, when it's balanced out by explicitly defined

safety standards. However, in this particular situation, safety standards are

being relaxed by this legislation. Contractors will be able to use

"equivalent workers" instead of workers who have been properly trained

and certified.

Of course,

it is absolutely necessary that this government permit that, because they've

destroyed the apprenticeship system. They've thrown out the Industry Training

and Apprenticeship Commission. They've replaced it with nothing. They've

completely undermined the apprenticeship system, charging tuition now for

apprentices so that fewer and fewer are being trained. The government has to

find some legislated way out of the mess that they've made in that area. So the

fact that equivalent workers will now be permitted instead of properly trained

and certified workers…. By the time an accident occurs because of improper

safety standards, heavy monetary fines cannot be considered adequate to undo the

damage or injury caused.

[ Page 5868 ]

Another

concern is that the version of Bill 19 that we are voting on is a slim piece of

legislation void of any real, substantive details. Most of the meat of the

legislation will be set out in the regulations. However, the regulations will

not be debated in this House. We have no idea how the government is going to

decide upon those regulations. There will be very little, if any, public

scrutiny unless the minister commits to that process in an open, accountable and

public way before he passes regulations. I fear, though, that the regulations

will now be devised and managed solely by the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal

and Women's Services. The regulations, I fear, will not be subject to public

scrutiny, certainly will not be subject to debate in the Legislature and will be

able to be changed by the officials — the bureaucrats in the Ministry of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

The fact is

that no one yet has been advised of these regulations, so the consultation

process that the minister is so proud of has not in any way included the

regulation drafting to date. I think that means that the minister is asking

members of this House to vote on a piece of legislation that is not fully

transparent. Of course, that would be nothing new by this government. There are

changes and regulations that will be added later. The minister has introduced

the legislation in its current state with the idea that the problems will be

worked out later, and I say again that when it comes to safety standards, later

is tragically often just too late.

[1520]

There are

also questions surrounding "equivalent standards agreements," a

concept devised by the minister to allow unskilled workers to perform certain

safety operations. A contractor will now request to use equivalent or

alternative methods of work. I hope that we're not, but we could read that means

less qualified workers, cost-cutting measures, etc. There are no

definitions in

the legislation of what equivalency might imply, and therefore inconsistency

will inevitably occur as different safety managers apply different meanings of

equivalency, unless that issue is addressed.

Equivalency

is not the only term that is not defined in the legislation. There is also no

mention of what it means to be a qualified worker or a qualified person. These

are three key terms that go to the very heart of understanding not only the

legislation itself but also its wider implications. It is difficult to vote on a

piece of legislation when everything of importance is contained in the

regulations instead of in the actual legislation.

I again

address the point around ITAC, because it is a very important area of concern

— the concern deepened by the fact that the Minister of Advanced Education has

yet to table her legislation concerning the changes made to the Industry

Training and Apprenticeship Commission, ITAC. In fact, just yesterday all of the

Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission offices in British Columbia were

closed — doors shut, locked — replaced by a single transition office in

Burnaby and a phone. That's what now is the sole approach that this government

has for apprenticeship training.

Many

tradespeople are concerned about the correlation between the Safety Standards

Act and the new, yet to be introduced industry training legislation. How will

they work together? How will they relate to one another? Who will be responsible

for ensuring that safety standards are met during the current transition period?

It's difficult to fully appreciate the impact and implications of Bill 19

without also discussing its relationship with the upcoming industry training

legislation. Yet here we are. This government is putting through its safety

standards legislation without it being able to be put in the context of what

trades training will look like in this province.

I will have

much more to say on this bill during committee stage. However, I would like to

close with these remarks. Safety standards are essentially important to all

British Columbians. We have all seen the tragedy that can result from ignoring

that fact. Many people in industry have spoken for the need to err on the side

of caution when it comes to safety standards. Many people, both employers and

the workers, have spoken to me about the need to err on the side of caution.

They have asked for more time to implement the legislation, for more time to

study its implications and for more time to build a piece of legislation that is

prudent and cautious but that works for everybody. However, I see that this

government is proceeding regardless of those concerns. I suppose we can only

wait and see what the results will be. I will be having many questions at

committee, and it will be at that stage when I will be able to display by a vote

support or lack thereof of certain provisions of this legislation.

[1525]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I do thank the member for her comments. I've always been a student

of history, and it was fascinating to get this particular lesson in revisionist

history. I do welcome that. I think some of the comments made probably would

make Joseph Stalin blush in terms of the revisionist history associated with the

member's comments, but that's fine. I appreciate that she may have a different

view of these things. I guess only a New Democrat could see a decade-long

process as something that is ramming through a piece of legislation. Perhaps she

has been unduly influenced by the dragon bones exhibit over at the Royal B.C.

Museum and sees things in rather broader time periods than we do. I think,

certainly, the modernization of the safety legislation that's contained in Bills

19 and 20 is long overdue, and I'm very proud that we are moving forward with

those changes.

I was a tad

dismayed by the opposition leader's comments about senior bureaucrats

nefariously pulling things out of their left-hand drawer to bring forward to the

new government. "Bureaucrat" is not a term I use a whole lot, and I

think it's really unfortunate that the member makes the suggestion that somehow

something nefarious is being undertaken here.

It was just

as obvious to me in relation to the safety act as it was to the Museum Act that

this was a change that was long overdue. I suppose the former govern-

[ Page 5869 ]

ment was preoccupied with its fast ferries and other initiatives and couldn't

undertake some of the less sexy aspects of operating a government in British

Columbia. I guess we shouldn't be entirely surprised by that. I do think it is

long overdue that we move forward on this very important modernization and

streamlining of the safety system in British Columbia.

I was also

fascinated…. Again, I'm glad she put it on the record, though, that she

appeared to be suggesting that the legislation had been considered by the former

NDP cabinet and rejected. Again, this appears to be quite a gem of revisionist

history in terms of the development of this legislation. I, of course, was never

privy to any of the discussions that went on behind the — I shouldn't say iron

curtain — cabinet door of the NDP era.

It's

fascinating. If they considered safety legislation and rejected it, what then

did they do in the alternative? I never saw anything resembling a modernization

piece for the safety system from the former government. They had a whole decade

to do it, yet somehow it appears they didn't find the time, along with the

Museum Act, to undertake those things. Again, I have to take the member at her

word that they considered this and rejected it, but I didn't entirely become

convinced by her comments that, in fact, they had done that.

The

opposition leader also noted that she had been asked to express concerns with

respect to this act. It would be fascinating to know who asked her to express

concerns about this act. I know that on numerous occasions, consultative

processes were undertaken with the full range of stakeholders around the safety

system. I know this for a fact because I chaired one meeting that involved

representatives of the B.C. Federation of Labour. They were there. They

certainly weren't asking for this legislation to be rejected. I'd be fascinated

to know who's asked her to express concerns.

This is

outdated legislation, and again I ask — it's always appropriate to criticize,

I guess, particularly when you're in the opposition: where's the alternative?

After a decade of NDP government, where was the alternative to the safety

legislation that we are proposing here today?

[1530]

The member

was correct in one thing — that consultation needs to continue with respect to

the development of the regulations that will ultimately accompany the

legislation contained in Bill 19. We don't see the process of legislation — I

think this, perhaps, makes us a little different than the former government —

as one in which a great truth is delivered via legislation onto the floor of the

House and is wholeheartedly embraced and becomes the perfect truth and the whole

answer for eternity. In fact, in every corner of my ministry and in every corner

of government, we need to continue to work with stakeholders to always find ways

to make them more efficient and effective. I certainly undertake to do that on a

daily basis.

It's

certainly not a case here where we have failed to listen to public feedback —

just the opposite. We have had the mother of all consultative processes around

the development of this safety legislation and the development of the new safety

authority, including, among others — and I'm sure the opposition leader would

salute them — the B.C. Federation of Labour. They were full participants in

this. I thank them for that, and I thank the many other participants in this

process for the very thoughtful, important observations they brought to bear.

In some

cases they had concerns about moving ahead. That's good; that's good. This is

all part of the process of hearing people and understanding their concerns. By

doing so, you immeasurably strengthen the legislation which is then brought

before the Legislature.

The

opposition leader also used that magical term "downloading" in

relation to this. She didn't explain how it was downloading. I'm fascinated to

hear her opinion in the committee stage of the bill about how this could

possibly be construed as downloading, given particularly that the safety

engineering system that we have today is somewhere around 90 percent

self-supporting. Whether we have the government directly delivering safety

services, as we are today, or we have a safety authority delivering the safety

standards, as we will have about a year from now, it doesn't matter. The system

is essentially self-supporting. I don't even know how you could construct an

academic argument about this being downloaded. It's just purely nonsensical, but

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. Many of the theses argued by the

opposition leader are, in fact, entirely nonsensical, so why should this be any

different?

She also

suggested the new system wouldn't be accountable to the public. That is all

wrong. Through a variety of mechanisms — and we'll get into that more in Bill

20 — we certainly are going to be accountable to the public of British

Columbia. It's important that people understand that the provincial government

is not deserting the field of safety standards management. In a whole range of

areas we continue to have a primary role.

The

principal change here that is contained in Bill 19, and we'll note it again in

Bill 20, is that government moves out of direct delivery of those safety

standards. It's an important distinction. Government doesn't need to be in the

business of delivery. What it does is leave government in a more powerful, more

focused position to be managing the things that government can add value

through, for example, legislation; regulation; the setting of standards, which

is absolutely critical in the system; quality assurance, which is obviously very

important to the public and to people who work in the system; and policy and

program development. Those are the areas where government brings value to their

work. They don't have to be in the business of directly delivering.

I think

that's obviously a point. I hope it's not too subtle a point that it's escaped

the opposition leader, but that's a fundamental point about what we're doing

here.

[1535]

Again, in a

fairly typical fashion for her, the opposition leader suggested this was another

example of municipal downloading. Well, I'll give her this. The hon.

[ Page 5870 ]

Leader of the Opposition is certainly an expert in municipal downloading. She

was, after all, part of the NDP government back in 1996. I hope people haven't

forgotten this. Back in 1996, when the NDP government got into some financial

difficulty, what did they do about it? Did they make the difficult changes that

our government has made in respect to trying to get control of the finances? No.

They passed on their problem to the municipalities of British Columbia in the

form of an outright breach of the Local Government Grants Act. Arbitrarily,

unilaterally, without any notification, without any discussion, the NDP

government of 1996 downloaded by withdrawal of $113 million in local government

grants. Against their own law they downloaded an additional $113 million in

costs on municipalities in British Columbia, so she is clearly an expert in this

area, and I'll give her that. She also speaks out of both sides of her mouth

with respect to this.

There is

absolutely no municipal download in respect of either the safety act or the new

safety authority that is embraced in Bill 20. Again, as I noted earlier, this

function is essentially self-sustaining. For the 11 municipalities in British

Columbia that deliver safety programs through electrical inspections, gas

inspections and so on, those functions are entirely self-sustaining and will

continue to be self-sustaining under the new model.

We aren't

moving away from something that we had in the past. This is a new way for the

province to deliver on its standards. We are not changing the financial

relationship one piece with this in relation to the municipalities. The

suggestion that this is in some way municipal downloading is entirely false, and

we shouldn't be entirely surprised by that kind of assertion coming from the

opposition.

Importantly

as well, and I'm sorry to be going on at some length here, but I think it's

important that I do…. The opposition leader, I suspect wilfully, confuses the

issue of equivalent standards, which I think is a very important aspect of this

legislation and of the regulations that will follow. She confuses that with the

issue of qualified workers. I think she does it as a backdoor way to undertake

her criticism of the important changes in the ITAC model that are going to be

coming from the Minister of Advanced Education. I guess that's politics. But

it's important for the people of British Columbia to understand, I think, that

she confuses those two very important issues.

I do want

to say this. As part of the safety legislation and as part of the new safety

authority, we will continue to see qualified workers undertaking the safety jobs

in British Columbia, and those qualified workers are going to be part of a

system where public safety and workers' safety continue to be the centrepieces

of our safety system in British Columbia. We will, in the months ahead, be

developing regulations, again in consultation with a broad range of

stakeholders. The notion that somehow the regulations won't be under the

scrutiny of the public…. I mean, frankly, I'm astonished by that argument. How

the new regulations could, for example, be one iota less subject to the scrutiny

of the public than are the existing regulations…. It's all going to be out in

the open. It's all going to be there for consideration. We'll certainly be

hearing a range of views as we move forward with those regulations. In some

cases, we may have differences of opinion about what is appropriate regulation,

and that's good too. Differences of opinion always help us to advance our

thinking and to build from a better plane of understanding.

[1540]

The process

is certainly going to be open. It's certainly going to be inclusive. Certainly,

we look forward to working with stakeholders to build on what is, in British

Columbia today, a very good safety record. Bill 19 and Bill 20, which we'll be

discussing in just a moment, are going to build on that very successful safety

record we have in British Columbia. We're going to be building on the experience

of other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world to make our safety system

the most modern, the most streamlined, the most effective safety system that

exists in Canada and, I suspect, anywhere on the globe. British Columbians can

move forward knowing that their safety system is the very best and that their

government is working very hard to make it even better.

I move

second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19,

Safety Standards Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I now call second reading of Bill 20.

SAFETY AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 20 be read for a second time now.

I'm pleased

to present Bill 20, the Safety Authority Act, for second reading. A major review

revealed that our public safety system had become increasingly stressed due to

rapid technological change, population growth, escalating costs and outdated

legislation. In the years since that review, many people from industry,

business, government, labour and associations have devoted time and effort in

shaping a modern system to ensure a responsive, sustainable safety system for

today and tomorrow.

This

legislation is one of the results of that review and consultation. The Safety

Authority Act provides for the administration of safety delivery components of

the Safety Standards Act by an independent, not-for-profit safety authority.

The

authority will be fully cost-recovered through fees for service, for inspection

and for licensing and certification. Currently, the safety program is about 90

[ Page 5871 ]

percent cost-recovered. The authority will set the fees in consultation with

industry and based on criteria established by the province and outlined in the

administrative agreement. Having control over the revenues collected, the

authority can ensure that all funds are reinvested in the safety system.

There are

other advantages as well. This act allows the delivery of safety services by an

organization that operates under the same rules and principles as most

stakeholders, making the safety services more relevant, stable and predictable.

The authority will observe sound business principles while fostering safety and

will operate with the direction and advice of a qualified board of directors.

Strong checks and balances built into the system will ensure public safety

standards are met.

Be assured

that government continues to be responsible and accountable to British

Columbians for public safety programs. While the British Columbia Safety

Authority will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of safety

services, the government continues to be responsible to set legislation,

regulation and major external policies; adopt codes and standards by regulation;

manage relationships related to interprovincial codes and standards; oversee

local government participation in the safety system; establish the fee-setting

process and criteria; oversee the appeal process; delegate administrative powers

to the authority; and, finally, monitor results.

Along with

the Safety Standards Act, this legislation will modernize the safety system

while maintaining and enhancing one of the best provincial safety records in

Canada. It will ensure reliable, efficient and effective delivery of the public

safety system for British Columbia for many years to come. I look forward to a

second reading of this bill.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate on second

reading.

[1545]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think, in my earlier comments in relation to Bill 19, I covered

off most of the areas here. This safety authority is a very important piece in

the modernization of safety delivery in the province. It is going to make for an

even stronger safety system for this province. We have built on the experience

of jurisdictions elsewhere in Canada and around the world in developing this

model. I'm very confident in the very extensive and very professional work that

has been done by staff in my ministry and, indeed, across government as they

moved forward to implement the goal of a stronger, sustainable, efficient,

effective safety system and safety authority for the province of British

Columbia. I look forward to all members supporting this on second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 20 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20,

Safety Authority Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call estimates debate. For the information of the members, we

will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:47 p.m.

The

Chair: We are going to take a ten-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 16:

ministry operations, $642,998,000, (continued) .

MacPhail: I'm going to explore the area of the ministry of state for women's

equality first. Just for the information of the committee, I will have a few

questions on housing and then the Olympics.

Could the

minister tell the committee what the income threshold for receiving child care

subsidies was in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003?

[1605]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The income levels that determine the monthly subsidy vary quite a

bit, primarily because of the size of the family and the income level of the

family, but I can give the member some examples, if she wishes. If you took a

single parent working with a four-year-old in group care, previously they would

qualify for the top subsidy at $1,297 net monthly income. That subsidy would

have been $368 a month. The new one is $368 a month, with the raising of the

level to approximately $1,400 net a month. Under the new system that begins in

May, we'll see the monthly amount of $368 for a single parent working with a

four-year-old in group care. If you have a single parent in school with a

two-year-old and a four-year-old in family care, with a net monthly income of

$1,490, currently the level of subsidy is $758, and the new subsidy will be

$758. The full subsidy for this parent is $758 a month.

MacPhail: I know the minister is giving me the facts, but she's avoiding the

question. The income

[ Page 5872 ]

threshold for 2001 was what, and what was the income threshold for 2002?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The difficulty arises around the size of the family and the income

level of the family. There is a formula, and that's what makes it difficult to

give a definitive number for the member. But I'll just say again that a single

parent working with a four-year-old in group care, with a monthly income of

$1,297 a month, qualifies for the full subsidy of $368 a month. This person

would also be eligible for full subsidy with a net monthly income of up to

$1,397 a month. So it's difficult to give the member the number that she's

looking for, because it does vary because of the size of the family and the

income level of the family.

[1610]

MacPhail: Let me try this. By how much did the minister raise the threshold

for people to qualify and, therefore, people lost part of their child care

subsidy? If the minister is going to stand up and try to obfuscate with figures

to show that nobody can figure out how she cut, then I'll just move on to

another question.

Hon. L.

Stephens: I'm sure the member is looking for the decisions that were made

around child care subsidy a year ago. This is when the income threshold was

raised by $285 a month, which meant that there were some families who no longer

qualified for subsidy. Since then, we have made the change, and we have raised

the threshold by $100. We now have approximately 3,000 children that will be

eligible for subsidy, and we'll have a further 6,000 children who will have

their subsidy increased, for a total of approximately 9,000 children.

MacPhail: In fact — and I understand how this can happen — the minister

said she raised the threshold, and in fact she lowered the threshold. Here's

what happened. The families who previously qualified for child care subsidies

— and therefore could stay in the workforce — had their threshold income

changed so that if you earned $285…. In other words, the threshold was reduced

by $285 per month. Previously, if you earned $1,500 a month, you would qualify

for some subsidy. This government reduced it so that you would only be able to

earn $1,215 per month in order to qualify for any subsidy.

I think the

minister is looking for a pat on the back, because as of May 2003, if a family

now has an income of $1,315 per month, they will continue to qualify for the

subsidy. What the government did was they knocked thousands of children off the

child care subsidy list, and they're now trying to claim credit because they

added a few thousand more children back.

The B.C.

Coalition of Women's Centres states that before April 2002, a single mom could

earn $9.20 an hour or less and still earn a subsidy. Now she must earn $8.73 an

hour or less to qualify. Where is it that the minister feels…? Even after

she's restored some children to receiving a subsidy, where is it that the

minister gets the gumption to stand up and say they support children and child

care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The changes that have been made to the child care system are based

on the sustainability of the child care system and the predictability and the

choices for parents.

The changes

that were made to the child care subsidy…. When we looked at the results of

those changes and the Ministry of Human Resources was able to realize some

organizational efficiencies within their ministry, we looked at putting money

back to child care, particularly for parents, recognizing that many low-income

parents and single-parent families struggle with finding the funding they

require to make sure their children have access to quality child care. That's

what we've done.

[1615]

We were

very clear, as was the Premier, that when we looked at the strategic shifts that

we made in the budgeting process, we would evaluate those decisions, and where

we found that we needed to make some changes, we would do that. This is one of

those instances where we found that we needed to put some funding back in, and

quite simply that's what we've done. We've raised that level to $100. Frankly,

member, I'm looking forward to the day when the economy of the province picks

up, we have a lot more people working and paying taxes, and we can contribute

further to parent subsidy in this province.

MacPhail: Well, the minister will be waiting a long time because the good

Liberal government has placed our economic growth in this country number ten in

2003, number ten in 2004, and we may move up to the seventh- or eighth-lowest in

2005. Those forecasts from the banks are based on a resolution to the softwood

lumber dispute, and that's nowhere in sight.

So what

does this government do? Instead of actually using the relative resources of

government to cushion the effects on families because of the downturn in the

economy, this government gives it all away to the richest and the corporations,

and then cuts the child care subsidy.

The child

care subsidy for a single mom with a four-year-old, the minister just said, was

$368 a month. Well, the good news is that that same family got the same subsidy

when Bill Vander Zalm and the Social Credit government were in power, and they

lost power in November of 1991. But what's happened to day care costs since

1991? Well, for that same family that gets a subsidy of $368, the average cost

for a day care space now is $495 to $537 and rising every day because of the

cutbacks this government has made.

Let me just

read a letter from a woman — well, I assume it's a woman; my apologies if it's

not — in Gibsons, B.C., a single mom trying to get by on this government's

reduced child care subsidy. I shall read it into the record, and I got

permission to do so.

was a victim of the Liberal Party child care subsidy cutbacks. I have done

everything I can think of — writing

[ Page 5873 ]

letters to MPs and the Premier, media forums, etc. — to no

avail.

"The

fact is, we are not making it. I now have to pay appro ximately

$600 per month, and that is with a family member generously helping me four

days a month. I am a single parent who has always t aken

pride in the fact that I have been steadily employed and self-sufficient,

never relying on government handouts.

"The

child care subsidy is not a handout; it is paid as a wage to hard-working

child care providers who ensure the well-being of our children while we earn

money to pay our taxes."

And then in

brackets she has:

$1 billion upgrade for the Sea to Sky Highway for a ten-day event? I don't

think so.

"Before

the cutbacks, we just squeaked by, but now I am depending on credit cards to

buy groceries and clothing, and the debt just gets deeper and deeper. The

letters I've written have fallen on deaf ears, spouting quotes

about 'We want you to reach your full potential.' I've worked full-time for 20

years. How much more full potential do they want me to get?"

What is it

that the minister doesn't get about the fact that her attack on working families

is hurting not only the families and the children but the economy?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Again, I will say to the member opposite that we looked at the

child care subsidy. We looked at the number of children, particularly in some of

the inner-city school areas of the province. We talked with child care

providers, and we've made the decision to put that $100 back into child care

subsidy.

As I said

earlier, I look forward to the day when we can, in fact, increase that. There

hadn't been a change to child care subsidies since 1995, so there were plenty of

opportunities to increase that subsidy over the years. As the finances of the

province improve, I look forward to being able to do that.

[1620]

MacPhail: There were many changes to supporting child care, and we'll get

into those, because the minister's cut them all. I hear the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services trying to say: "Well, you know,

we're no worse than the previous administration." That's what they've been

reduced to, and of course, even that nobody is believing, because they are worse

than the previous administration by a long shot.

Isn't it

interesting? A government that came in here with a 77-seat majority, and their

claim now is: "Well, we're no worse than anybody else." I'm sure every

person who voted for this government is standing with pride, saying: "My

gosh, they're doing a good job on our behalf." I heard the rant of the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — an absolute rant.

It's surprising how easy it is to get them off their agenda. Just make a little

speech, pointing out something they haven't heard in caucus from the sheep, and

they have to go off on a 20-minute rant. It's very easy to throw them off their

agenda.

Now we hear

from the Minister for Women's Equality. I know how it is to be insulated and

isolated in the nice protective cocoon of the Liberal caucus, where everybody is

hoping to be in cabinet. Everybody's got the cone of silence on them now,

because there's going to be a big cabinet shuffle. Everybody is jockeying for

position, not wanting to hurt the feelings of the Premier, because they know

there's a whole bunch of people who are going to be changed over on the

government benches. They're all hoping they'll be moved over there. So nobody is

standing up and asking any questions. That became extremely obvious last night.

The amount of e-mail I'm getting about the lack of performance by the Liberal

MLAs last night is the most I've ever had.

Now this

minister stands up and says: "Well, we're hoping the economy is going to

turn around." Hmm, let's see. Would that be what they said just a short 21

months ago? Is that what the New Era document said: "Well, we've got

to cut child care because we're hoping the economy will turn around"?

Wasn't it going to be: "We're going to cut taxes, give the rich a huge tax

cut and they're going to pay for themselves. It's going to be nirvana"? I

can hardly wait to circulate the minister's comments that she's hoping the

economy will turn around.

Let's just

have an assessment about how many children were covered by a day care subsidy in

2001 and how many were eligible for a day care subsidy in 2002. Of course, we

know that people are fleeing this province. We know that particularly families

are fleeing this province because of all the cutbacks, but let's just try —

even given that — to put it in context.

Hon. L.

Stephens: The estimated numbers were between 39,000 and 42,000 —

pre-changes — because of the fluctuation in children coming on and off child

care. We are now estimating that 36,000 children will be covered with parent

subsidy.

MacPhail: And the year in between?

Hon. L.

Stephens: For the current year, approximately 33,000. With the changes that

will come into effect in May, it will be 36,000.

[1625]

MacPhail: So 6,000 children were booted out of child care, and the

government wants credit a year later for putting 3,000 of those 6,000 back.

Maybe, actually, 9,000 children were booted out of child care by this government

— no other reason — and the government is putting 3,000 to 6,000 of those

children back on child care subsidies. But who knows whether the parents have

survived in the meantime, whether the parents have actually been able to stay in

the workforce? Certainly, this letter that I just read into the record…. That

single parent was at threat of even being able to stay in the workforce.

What's been

the feedback to the minister booting off 9,000 children and then restoring child

care subsidies to 3,000 to 6,000? Has the minister received flower bouquets for

that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Parents are generally appreciative of the fact that we're now able

to put $100 back in,

[ Page 5874 ]

as we expect they would be. That's not to say that there are still not

challenges out there for parents and for child care providers, because there

certainly are. We are making some structural changes to the way we organize and

deliver child care programs, making them more sustainable and certainly more

equitable across the province. So with the changes we've made to the operating

grant, those should go a long way in assisting parents to access quality child

care.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to read into the record some of the

praise she's receiving. I actually haven't seen it. Maybe the minister would

like to stand up and read into the record the praise.

Hon. L.

Stephens: I would be happy to send those to the member opposite.

Unfortunately, we have none here today, but I can make sure that she receives

them.

MacPhail: I'd be happy to have that, and I look forward to it. I hope that

my mailbox can actually contain all of that. Very often people copy me — in

fact, most of the time people copy me — on correspondence, and I guess they've

missed my mailbox. The ones who are crying out in anguish have reached my

mailbox, but not the ones the minister says she's receiving, so I would be happy

to receive that. Of course, the minister has received a great deal of criticism

even for the most recent announcement, but of course, the minister disregards

that criticism coming as just being political.

The budget

for the child care operating funding program this year is $48 million. How much

was it in 2001?

R. Lee:

May I seek leave for an introduction?

Leave

granted.

[1630]

Introductions by Members

R. Lee:

I'm very honoured to have some visitors from Beijing. They are Sang Peng, deputy

director of the office for international cooperation and exchanges, Beijing

Municipal Education Commission, the People's Republic of China; Mr. Wang

Guangfa, chairman, Beijing Justice Group and Beijing Royal School; Ms. Lin La,

director of the international department, Beijing Justice Group; Ms. Zhang

Chunjing, principal of Beijing Royal School; Mr. Ren Jianglong, director of

startup office, Beijing Royal School; Ms. Kathy Jiang, senior consultant,

Beijing Justice Group; and also Mr. Pato Chan, president of EIC, the Education

Institute of Canada. Would the House join me to welcome this delegation.

Debate Continued

Hon.

L. Stephens: We have the numbers for '02-03, but unfortunately, we don't

have them for '01-02. I can give you last year's number. That was $53.173

million, and it included the operational funding for eligible licensed group and

family child care providers that received the compensation contribution program

funding, the infant and toddler incentive grant and the transition funding

program for out-of-school providers.

MacPhail: So from '02-03 to '03-04, there has been a reduction of about $6

million. I actually have the figure. It's a $14.6 million reduction from '01-02.

Think about that. It's a reduction of almost 30 percent. Hmm, a 30 percent

reduction in the child care operating funding program since this government took

over.

What's the

budget for the child care operating funding program for '03-04 and '04-05? Oh,

'03-04 has already been given, so for '04-05.

Hon. L.

Stephens: We do not have the '04-05 numbers at this time.

MacPhail: Why not? This government prides itself on a three-year fiscal

plan. It's the cornerstone. Why not? It's basic.

Hon. L.

Stephens: We will be receiving some funding from the federal government, and

we have a variety of programs we're finalizing, including the capital grant, so

we will be moving funds around very likely — maybe, maybe not. This is why we

cannot give the member a definitive number for that year.

MacPhail: Well, what is it now? What did you have to book to get your budget

passed?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The funding for this year is $48 million.

MacPhail: Not next year.

Hon. L.

Stephens: For '03-04, it's $48 million.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, through you, what did the minister have to book for her

to get her fiscal plan approved for '04-05?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The base funding is $48 million.

MacPhail: For '04-05. So what programs are being…? Well, let me read the

list out. This will be easier. Here are the programs that are being eliminated,

according to the information from child care advocates. The new program

structure will eliminate certain child care programs such as contribution and

compensation staff incentive. That's the increased child care worker wages to

attract and keep staff. Is that true?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The only funding cuts to wages have been the elimination of the

Monroe funding agreement. That was a union agreement for 39 centres, and that

has expired as of March 31 of this year. What we have done is combine the three

child care operating

[ Page 5875 ]

programs into one. That one program was a compensation contribution program,

and it included funding for wages, among a few other things. What we've done is

raise the amount that will be available for child care centres, and it will be a

combination of these three programs — the compensation contribution program,

which included wages, the infant and toddler incentive grant and some of the

money from the transition out-of-school program.

[1635]

MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to actually tell the public, to name

the centres that are getting more money and how much.

Hon. L.

Stephens: There are approximately 4,600 child care centres and family

providers in the province. There are approximately 1,600 centres and preschools

who will receive an increase, of the 2,400 centres and preschools in the

province. All family providers — and there are 2,400 family providers — will

receive an increase in funding.

MacPhail: I will get to figuring this out. There are all sorts of people out

there figuring it out. We can have fun with math and spend hours here doing

this, or the minister can just come clean.

There are

4,600 child care centres, and 2,400 family providers will get an increase. How

much? So far the minister has said that 1,600 centres and preschools will get an

increase. Just add it up. Take the 4,600 and just say who's not getting an

increase, who's getting cut. How do you know the 2,400 family providers are

going to get an increase?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There are about 880 group child care providers that will receive

less operating funding than they are currently receiving. That is due to the

reduction in Munroe, which affects about 100; the out-of-school transition

funding program, which affects about 600; this supplementary little special

funding from the compensation contribution program, and there are about 30 of

those. Then there are the child-minding centres, which we are no longer funding;

there are about 150 of those.

[1640]

Just to

perhaps give the member some sense of what that means, what we can do is give

you the age grouping that we're going to be funding now. In group zero to three,

the current operating funding — this is an average of per child per month —

is $163. With the new operating funding, the average per child per month will be

$220.

For the

three-to-kindergarten age group, the current operating funding averages $48 a

month. That will increase to $117 a month. For grade 1 and up, the current

operating is $25. It will increase to $49. In preschool, the current operating

funding is $13 and will increase to $29. In family care, the zero-to-three age

group currently gets $50 a month. That will increase to $68.

Three-to-kindergarten has never been funded. They will now receive $60. The

grade 1 and up, who have never been funded in family care, will now receive

approximately $31 a month. Now, these are the average per child per month.

MacPhail: Of the 880 child care centres that are getting a cut, how many

children are they responsible for?

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's information that we can provide to the member. We would

have to go through those centres one by one and calculate the number of children

that are there and what category they are in. We can get that information for

the member.

MacPhail: Well, how many children will get a benefit then by having child

care provided by family providers?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The estimated number that we have for children who would benefit

is about 17,000 in the family child care.

MacPhail: Let me get this straight. The ministry can, at the drop of the

hat, tell me how many children benefit, but they can't me tell me how many

children in centres are having their funding cut? Has the ministry abandoned all

of those centres, in terms of keeping track of the stats of where they're

cutting funding? How is it that that stat was available and the one I asked for

on the cuts to the child care centres wasn't available?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The number is easier to figure out with the family providers

because there's just the one group. In group care there are a number of

different categories, and we can do that for the member now. It will just take a

few minutes; that's all. If she cares to wait, we can certainly do that. If not,

we can make sure they get that number in the next day or two.

[1645]

MacPhail: Yes, I'd appreciate it if one of the staff could work on it now.

In terms of

group care, regulated care, what is — if any — dedicated funding for infant

and toddler needs?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Out of the total budget, the funding that is going to infant and

toddler care is $15.9 million, with $12.6 million to group and $3.3 million to

family providers. That means that in the group centres, the increase is $57 per

child per month. In the family care, it's an increase of $18 per child per

month.

MacPhail: What accountability measures are going to be in place to ensure

that child care providers are spending the money as they should?

Hon. L.

Stephens: We are putting in place an accountability measure for the child

care providers, and they will be required to file the profile of their centre

[ Page 5876 ]

annually. They will be subject to spot audits, and they will be required to

file monthly reporting on their enrolments. This will enable us to get better

data and to track the numbers of children and where they are much better than

we're able to do now.

MacPhail: Is that information provision contingent upon getting funding?

Hon. L.

Stephens: No, it is not. It will be part of the contract that providers may

or may not ask for funding. This is going to be part of the contract. If they

choose to ask for funding, they're perfectly free to do so.

MacPhail: I'm told that the monthly funding…. There must be monthly

reporting, and it will be based on the monthly reporting that the funding flows.

There are concerns in rural and remote communities about this because of the

seasonal employment that takes place, particularly in northern communities, so

that child care enrolment fluctuates. It fluctuates through the year. Northern

health care providers are extremely concerned about this. Monthly enrolment

fluctuates so much, and if funding is contingent upon that, then there will be

centres that will not be able to continue.

[1650]

Hon. L.

Stephens: When we looked at how we were going to fund the child care spaces,

we looked at the current system, which is by licence type, and we looked at

funding by enrolment. We decided to go with enrolment, because we wanted to

encourage as many children as possible to be enrolled in child care centres. I

think the member knows there are many children who are looking for child care

spaces, and we wanted to make sure we maximized the number of spaces that were

there. This is why we've chosen to go with enrolment over the type of licensing

that a centre may have. We will be monitoring these changes very carefully.

We do know

and understand that the needs of families in the smaller communities and the

more rural and remote communities of the province can be different, so we will

be making sure we monitor this as we go along. If there are some changes that

are required, we'll certainly look at them at that time.

MacPhail: What's the time frame for monitoring this, prior to change

occurring or confirming the program?

Hon. L.

Stephens: We are going to be developing the evaluation process over the next

number of months. We anticipate that within six months we'll have the ability to

make those kinds of determinations.

MacPhail: Has the minister or her staff had representations on this issue?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Again, I'll say to the member that, going with the enrolment-based

funding, we wanted to make sure that we maximized the number of spaces and that

we weren't funding empty child care spaces. Now, having said that, there have

been centres who have made representation to the child care branch voicing some

concerns about what that may or may not mean for their particular situation. We

do want to make sure that the system is stable and predictable.

As I said,

we're going to be looking at the results of the new funding formula over the

next number of months to determine whether or not it's working well and whether

child care providers have that stability and predictability they require. Again,

when we do our evaluations, if we need to make some changes, we'll look at those

at that time.

MacPhail: This change in enrolment funding as opposed to centre funding —

the minister can couch it in any term she likes. But just the same way that the

Minister of Human Resources cut people with disabilities off welfare because he

assumed there were people who were not being funded appropriately, there is very

little, if any, evidence that the government was funding empty seats — very

little evidence. Even if there was a tiny bit of evidence, to turn the system

upside down is merely a guise for the funding cuts. That's all it is.

At a

minimum, I hope this monitoring centre is done in a way that actually doesn't

just try to provide the veil for the funding cut and actually takes care of the

statistics around the important issues facing children.

The

minister mentioned earlier the fed-prov child care agreement. Can she expand on

the contents of that agreement, the time lines for distributing that funding

from the federal government to the provincial government?

[1655]

Hon. L.

Stephens: I am very pleased that the provinces were able to come to an

agreement with the federal government for child care and early learning. It is a

service that more and more people are recognizing that we need to pay more

attention to, put more resources in and to develop at a little higher level.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

We are

going to be following roughly the same kind of reporting process as is the case

with the early childhood development initiative. We will be required to report

on our spending and where it has been spent. The agreement calls for that money

to be spent in regulated child care. We are due to receive this funding year,

'03-04, $3.25 million through the CHST. We have not received that yet. As we go

out in the out years, over the five-year period, we will receive almost $120

million for British Columbia. As the years go out, the funding increases, ending

in '07-08 with $46 million.

MacPhail: I was told by the Minister of State for Early Childhood

Development that all of the money has to go into regulated child care. Is that

correct?

[ Page 5877 ]

Hon. L.

Stephens: That is correct. The funding that is coming to us for child care

and early learning is to be spent in the child care programs. We are in the

process now of making plans for how that can be done.

MacPhail: So family child care can't receive any of the money.

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes. Family child care is eligible. It's regulated licensed care

that is the criterion for the federal funding.

MacPhail: Sorry, you're right. My apologies for that.

Just to go

back. Family providers — of the 2,400 family providers, are they all licensed?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, member, they are all licensed.

MacPhail: What are the discussions that are going on? The first year is

$3.25 million. How is that money going to be spent? What criteria have been

established?

Hon. L.

Stephens: For that amount of money, we're looking at where we can get the

biggest bang for our buck in terms of supports for child care. Those decisions

haven't been made yet. We don't have the money, and as I said, we are in the

process of developing where we will put those extra resources this year and in

the years that follow.

MacPhail: What are the consultations to determine that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: We are consulting across government. We will be speaking with the

Provincial Child Care Council and seeking their input as well.

MacPhail: What ministries are involved? When you say across government, what

does that mean?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Children and Family Development, who have responsibility for

supported child care. They are making some significant changes to the way they

deliver their programs, as the member knows. We're looking at how we can make

sure that we have programs that are integrated and coordinated across

government. So those discussions are going on at the moment.

MacPhail: What are the reporting requirements demanded by the federal

government?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The reporting mechanism is very similar to the early childhood

development initiative, which means that it has to be public, that there has to

be a baseline set, and then you have to be able to show the incremental spending

on the out years. This year we will be setting that baseline. We will be

determining the reporting mechanism that we use. I believe we have to have that

complete by November of this year.

[1700]

MacPhail: The federal government has set a date of November for '03-04? The

regulated child care spending now is $48 million. Is that not the base?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There's other funding that we put into regulated care, licensed

care — the subsidy dollars, for instance — and the capital funding and

supported child care. We're looking at all of those different programs and how

we can come up with a funding arrangement that will benefit the most number of

children.

MacPhail: So the base will include things like capital, supported child

care, child care subsidy and program spending. What else?

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's about it, member.

MacPhail: The government sets that, and then all of the $3.25 million

spending has to be above that.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That is correct.

MacPhail: It took us quite a while to get the reporting out from '01-02 from

the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development on federal programs

targeted in that area. I guess I shouldn't have rolled my eyes that the federal

government has asked for this by November, because it took much longer than that

to get it out of the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. The

minister has to put all of this out by November of this year. Will it be posted

on the website?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, it will be posted on the website. It's required to be public,

and it will be.

I think

provinces and ministries learned a great deal from the reporting process of the

early childhood development initiative, and so we'll be able to use some of the

techniques they have used there. The federal government also recognized that the

provinces have different programs, so this is why there is some time allocated

for everyone to get their report in by November. That will allow all the

provinces to do what they need to do to make sure it gets in there at that time.

MacPhail: Is this work being contracted out, or is it in ministry?

Hon. L.

Stephens: This will be in ministry, member.

MacPhail: Can the minister tell us what funding is flowing from the federal

government for aboriginal child care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The amount included in the federal new dollars of $900 million

will have an additional $35 million for aboriginal child care. There is still

not,

[ Page 5878 ]

to my knowledge — and perhaps you want to speak to the Minister of State

for Early Childhood Development…. I'm not aware that the money has been

forwarded on to us either. There is some suggestion that some of the other

aboriginal child care money that the federal government allocated last year has

not arrived yet either, so perhaps you want to raise that issue with the

Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

MacPhail: I've already done that, and she referred the questions here.

How much of

the money are we expecting from last year and this year?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The $35 million I mentioned, of course, was nationally. That's not

what we're getting here in British Columbia. I wanted to clarify that, in case I

was misrepresenting anything. The $35 million is nationally. The federal

government will be directly consulting with first nations. The money will flow

directly to first nations, and there won't be any money flowing in '03-04. For

whatever reason, the federal government has decided it's not going to flow that

money until '04-05, but it will be directly with first nations.

MacPhail: Is it the minister's understanding that she will be