British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 30, 2002

H0430am-15

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Morning Sitting Volume 6, Number 15 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3045 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond Hon. G. Collins Hon. C. Hansen Hon. J. Murray Hon. S. Santori Hon. G.

Abbott Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3052 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3052 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3053 Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) J.

Kwan Hon. G. Hogg T. Christensen

3045 TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 11. Committee of the Whole House MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair. [1005] The committee met at 10:06 a.m. On

section 1. J. MacPhail: This is the repeal of the Access to Edu- cation Act, which guaranteed the tuition fee freeze and, I believe, a reduction as well. During the estimates with the Minister of Advanced Education, I and my col- league explored the concept of post-secondary institu- tions being required to have bursaries for students who couldn't afford tuition. What's the progress on that? Of course, the repeal of this act leaves post-secondary stu- dents at risk of being priced out of the market of at- tending. Hon. S.

Bond: As we indicated in estimates, institu- tions are making decisions about what they will do with the tuition revenue. Many of them have indicated they will be providing student financial assistance. And of course, we will continue to have a student financial assis- tance program to help those students most in need. Many institutions, including UBC, are making decisions to add additional funding for student financial assistance. J. MacPhail: I'd appreciate specifics, please, by in- stitution. Hon. S. Bond: We don't have that information in terms of institution by institution.

We can get the in- formation for the member opposite for those institu- tions that have announced. Certainly, we will make that information available as it becomes public. J. MacPhail: S o i s t h e g o v e r n m e n t j u s t t a k i n g a completely hands-off approach to allocation of re- sources by institution in order to ensure that at least some people whose parents can't afford the tuition can go to university or college? Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, during estimates we made it clear that we have sent block funding to institutions around the province. They will make decisions about the programs.

In terms of additional revenue from tuition, we have certainly seen that institutions are interested in what's in the best interests of students in this province. Institutions will make decisions about how to best meet the needs of the students in their particular institutions. J. MacPhail: Yes, that was the mantra that the min- ister was giving during estimates. That was almost a month ago. Students are now graduating from high school having to make decisions about whether or not t h e y c a n a f f o r d t o g o o n t o p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n . It's a pretty crucial time.

I was hoping that the minister might have had some more information for students who can't afford the tuition fee increases that every day grow more substantial. I was shocked at some of the college tuition fee increases that are at the very basic level, first and second year — shocking increases ap- proaching 100 percent. All right. Well, let me ask this. What is a grade 12 student to do to find out where bursaries are available? Is he or she supposed to check with each institution? [1010] Hon. S.

Bond: I want to point out, as we have con- tinued to make clear, that despite the increases in tui- tion that have been contemplated by institutions, Brit- ish Columbia will continue to have some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada. We also have an excellent stu- dent financial assistance program, and institutions are making decisions to provide additional funds. Students will continue to look at opportunities for bursaries and student financial assistance in the same way that they have: using the student financial assis- tance website and also checking with the institutions where they plan to attend.

In fact, students have done that, and they will continue to do it in that manner. J. MacPhail: It would be nice if the minister would actually go to her own hometown and talk to the stu- dents there. I was talking to the students at the College of New Caledonia and the University of Northern Brit- ish Columbia, and then I had the good fortune to meet with post-secondary students in Nelson. Every single one of the students said two things. "We're at risk of being able to continue to return to university because of the tuition hikes." And then they also said: "By the way, we can't find a summer job.

All of the summer employment programs are gone." That was particularly true in the minister's hometown. Let me just be clear: by the repeal of the Access to Education Act, we're back to the days where it's what- ever the market foists on parents or students, no jobs — and oh, by the way, it's back to the old days where you have to suss out all the information yourself. Is that where we're at now? Is that the good news for people wanting to get post-secondary education? Hon. S. Bond: Students will be able to talk to insti- tutions about the kinds of bursaries and scholarships

3046 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 and apply for them in the ways that they have in the past. We continue to provide student financial assis- tance. We now have a website where students will be able to go and look for that information. Students will look for that information in the same ways they have in the past. J. MacPhail: I'm wondering: if the student has ac- cess to a website, why doesn't the minister have that information available for me today? Is it because it doesn't exist? Is it because the vast majority of institu- tions are not providing bursaries? Hon. S.

Bond: Students will be able to apply on line for student financial assistance from the province. In addition, they will be able to walk into or communicate with the institutions to get information about the kinds of additional resources that are available to them. They've done it in the past, and they will continue to do that today. J. MacPhail: Well, here we are. The minister doesn't have one single piece of new information.

I asked her during estimates whether she was trying to do herself out of a job, and clearly the repeal of this act and the lack of answers for people applying right now to go to college and university — hundreds of whom I met with over the course of the last ten days…. And this minister doesn't have any information. This act guaranteed stability, predictability and affordability for tuition.

Here are some of the increases in tuitions for UBC: 22 percent increase for under- graduate, 50 percent increase for commerce, 42 percent tuition increase for pharmaceutical science, 321 percent increase for MBA, 75 percent increase for medical school, 33 percent increase in tuition for education, 75 percent tuition increase for dentistry, 65 percent in- crease for law — actually, that I approve of — and 41 percent increase in tuition for architecture. There we are. I'm sorry, my apologies. Law has a perfectly good, l e g i t i m a t e r o l e i n o u r s o c i e t y .

T h a t ' s w h a t p e o p l e a r e now faced with in tuition increases. [1015] The minister said a month ago: "But gee, we're really hoping that the colleges and universities will set up bursary programs." She can't name any. Oh, UBC. In fact, UBC hasn't worked out those details yet. UVic, across the board, a 30 percent tuition increase for all students. Graduate students as of May 1, tomor- row, will have to cough up $826 more. Undergraduate students, as of tomorrow, will have to cough up $644 more for tuition.

Perhaps the minister can tell me where a student on the website can track down the bursaries available at UVic. Hon. S. Bond: I will once again answer the ques- tion. The fact is that students will continue to look for the financial assistance opportunities that are provided to them in the same way that they did last year. In fact, they would contact the University of Victoria or the other institutions they're considering attending and get information about student financial assistance that would be in addition to the government's. J.

MacPhail: Tomorrow a student at UVic who's at graduate school has to come up with $826 more. It's not the same as last year. It's not the same as the past. By repealing this legislation, this government has foisted dramatic increased costs on students wishing to attend post-secondary education. I don't know how the minister can somehow sug- gest that things haven't changed. If she were out talk- ing to her constituents, she would know how dramati- cally this is affecting people with access to post- secondary education.

It's unbelievably dramatic, and the number of people who are deciding right now whether it is within their economic realm to continue their post-secondary education is growing by leaps and bounds. Today, with the repeal of the legislation that guar- anteed access, this minister stands up and says: "It's up to the students, just the same way as in the past, to find out…." The Chair: Member, I'd just ask you to tone down the inflection in your voice. J. MacPhail: Why? The Chair: It's sort of degrading and really non- parliamentary. Carry on with your questioning, but please be cautious on the tone. J.

MacPhail: Isn't this interesting? Well, certainly I'm always interested in the new rules of procedure that develop in this House. The Chair: Member, I don't think we as members mock the other members. This is what you're implying. Please carry on with your debate. J. MacPhail: Certainly. I understand the great sensi- tivities of the government these days. I understand the pressure that they're under from the great protest amongst the communities — absolutely. Let me carry on, then.

The minister says — and I'm just repeating exactly what the minister says — that students can go and find out on the website what is available for them. Well, I'm asking the minister: what's available for students on the website who now have to pay $826 more as of tomorrow? What extra resources are available? It's not the same as last year. Hon. S. Bond: Students will actually be able to go to the student financial assistance website.

They will be able to apply on line for the kind of assistance the gov- ernment is providing, and students will also be able to — a s t h e y h a v e i n t h e p a s t — go to institutions and look at the programs of bursaries and scholarships that are available. Students have done it in the past. They will do it in the future.

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3047 We are certainly indicating that the process is the same. We recognize that tuition fees will be different, and having said that, we will continue in British Co- lumbia to be able to look at some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada despite the recent increases. J. MacPhail: Sorry, that's not washing, Mr. Chair. It's absolutely not washing. The minister knows full well that British Columbia over the next three years is skyrocketing towards the top for tuition fees in Can- ada.

The minister tries to suggest somehow that this year makes it still amongst the lowest. [1020] Well, once again this government comes in, repeals legislation that increased access in an affordable way to post-secondary education, and the minister doesn't have one answer for parents and students who are de- ciding right now whether they can afford to go to a post-secondary institution. It's shameful. The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass? Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail:

Section 7 of the Access to Education Act reads: "Government funding for additional student spaces.

"The government must establish, for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2001, the amount of government funding to be allocated to post-secondary institutions, in addition to any other government funding, that, in the opinion of the minister, is sufficient to enable post- secondary institutions to increase the number of spaces for full time students or the equivalent of full time students during the fiscal year by a total of 5,025 for all post-secondary institutions." Now that she's repealed this section, can the minis- ter say what additional funding, specifically for fund- ing student spaces, the minister has allocated as she repeals this legislated guarantee?

Hon. S. Bond: W e h a v e s e nt t o i n s t i t u t i o n s t h i s y e a r m o r e f u n d i n g t h a n t h e y r e c e i v e d l a s t y e a r . E a c h i n s t i t u - tion received a lift. We have sent that money in terms of block funding. We are looking at specific increases in ar- eas — in particular, in high-tech seats and also health care. We will be looking at a general increase in the number of seats. Each institution did receive a lift in the funding. We sent it through in block funding. They are going to work hard to increase access for students in this province. J.

MacPhail: Every institution in the province has said they don't have enough money to fund the in- crease in seats — every single institution. Has the min- ister provided, in the block funding, any money for increased overall seats — increasing the number that were in place as of April 1, 2001, and the number of seats that are in place right now? Has the minister pro- vided any funding for that? Interjection. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, do you want to tell the House Leader about proper behaviour? The Chair: Member, I'll just remind you that I don't need your input to the Chair. Hon. S.

Bond: We have sent to institutions in block funding $32 million more across the sector. We have given as much autonomy as possible for institutions to make decisions that meet the best needs of their stu- dents. Each institution got an increase in the number of dollars than they got last year. They are working hard. We anticipate growth in the sector. We have given in- stitutions the autonomy to make the decisions neces- sary to increase student access. J. MacPhail: The minister is repealing a guaranteed funding for 5,000 additional seats in post-secondary institutions.

What is she replacing it with, specifically? The $32 million doesn't even pay for increased MSP premiums and increased wages for one year. Hon. S. Bond:

Section 7 is a one-year…. What we're repealing was particularly a focus for one fiscal year. I will say it one more time: we have sent more money to institutions. We have looked at detargeting some of the programs so that institutions can make decisions about priorities for them. We are looking at increased access i n t h e p r o v i n c e . W e s e n t m o r e m o n e y . W e k n o w t h a t institutions will think very carefully about the priori- ties for their students. [1025] J.

MacPhail: I wonder how the minister is feeling about all of this, her mantra, when institutions are cut- ting programs across the province. How does the min- ister think it's going — her block funding for post- secondary institutions? How does she think it's going for increasing access to education? Hon. S. Bond: I think the important part of the process is that institutions are looking at the important priority programs for their students in their institu- tions. You know this government protected funding for post-secondary education at a time when that is a very challenging thing for us to have done.

I continue to be very proud of that fact. While institutions make chal- lenging decisions, they are focusing on what's best for students. J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm so glad the minis- ter is proud of her record. Perhaps she should actually visit some secondary institutions where students now h a v e w o r k e d a s h a r d a s t h e y c o u l d p o s s i b l y w o r k t o graduate from grade 12 with outstanding results and can't afford to go to university or college. That's exactly what's happening now.

That's happening across this province, and the minister has the gall to stand up and say she's proud of her record. Let me ask this of the minister: what grade 12 classes has she spoken to within the last month?

3048 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 Hon. S. Bond: I can candidly say I haven't spoken to grade 12 classes, but I have had the pleasure of visit- ing almost half of the campuses of the institutions in t hi s p ro v i nc e . T o b e ho ne s t w i t h y o u , p e o p l e we re i n- credibly appreciative of the fact that a Minister of Edu- cation actually took the time to visit those institutions and get a firsthand sense of what students are doing in this province.

In fact, I will remain proud of the fact that this is a government that made post-secondary education a priority in its budget and a priority in the agenda that we have in this province. J. MacPhail: It's embarrassing to hear this minister stand up and say that.

It is embarrassing for her to con- tinue the mantra when program after program is being cut; when Vancouver Community College — which can't raise their tuition the way this government would like to foist upon families, because they target low- income students and adult students returning after losing jobs — can't afford to raise their tuition, so they're cutting programs; when institutions across this province are cutting adult basic education programs because they can't raise tuition on their programs. That's what's embarrassing. [1030]

Section 1 approved on the following division: YEAS — 63 Falcon Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson Masi Thorpe Murray Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Brenzinger Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Nijjar Wong Suffredine MacKay K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan [1035] Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved. On

section 5. Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to

section 5 on the order paper. Perhaps I can speak to it and just inform the members what it is. It merely changes the time line in the act, which is 90 days, to 120 days. The 90 days would have expired on April 27, 2002. This extends it for an additional 30 days. [SECTION 5 (a), in the proposed

section 19.921 of the Health Authorities Act, by deleting "90 days" and substituting "120 days".] On the amendment. J. MacPhail: I assume the House Leader is answer- ing these questions. Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section? Hon. G. Collins: Bill 29 amended the Health Au- thorities Act to restore separate bargaining units for the community health and health facilities support workers. The member may remember that legislation.

In order to give effect to the restoration of separate bargaining units, Bill 29 directs the LRB to restore the articles of associa- tion for the separate bargaining units that were in place immediately prior to the consolidation of the two bar- gaining units. However, Bill 29 refers to the wrong LRB decision, and it was considered necessary to correct this reference through this miscellaneous amendment. J. MacPhail: That corrects the reference to the LRB decision, but the

section here also extends a time pe- riod of 30 days to 90 days. Now I understand the min- ister is extending that to 120 days. What is that time period for? Hon. G. Collins: My understanding is that the LRB is required to make the appropriate reference to the decision. This was 90 days in the act at the time. This takes it to 120 days. It gives them an additional 30 days to do that work. J. MacPhail: Perhaps. But I'm asking the minister what the work is that they're supposed to be doing. Hon. C.

Hansen: Basically, the work that has to be done within the time frame is to reinstate the original set bargaining units as was set out in that particular LRB decision. [1040] J. MacPhail: Bill 29 was passed at the end of Janu- ary, as I recall. It was rammed through in a late-night sitting here. We've had February, March, April, and now the government needs another 30 days. What are the complications? Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment is to provide the time frame in which the typographical error gets cor-

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3049 rected. The correction that's in Bill 11 is to change…. Instead of reading 573, it should have read B73. The time frame that was provided in the original act was 30 days. In order to provide for that correction with the corrected reference to the LRB decision, we have to make sure that it's within the 120-day framework, so that's what the amendment to this provision before us is for. J. MacPhail: Okay, we've got lots of time here. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to explain exactly what that means.

What are the practical reali- ties of what the minister is doing? A correction refer- ring to a decision that's on the books should be instan- taneous. There must be something that flows from this correction that requires a longer period of time. What I'm trying to understand is what flows that requires an extra 30 days. Hon. C. Hansen: The original provision in Bill 29 was to allow for this redefinition of the bargaining units within 30 days.

When they realized that there was a typographical error in Bill 29, they then brought in the amendment in Bill 11 as part of Miscellaneous Statutes, which is an appropriate use of Miscellaneous Statutes. It then provided to extend it from 30 days to 90 days. Well, the challenge that we now have, because of the time it's taken to get Bill 11 before the chamber, is to extend that a little bit further in order to give the time frame for the HEABC to implement this provision with the Labour Relations Board. J. MacPhail: Okay. Then my original question still stands: what's taking so long? Is this retroactive then?

Last me ask this: has the work been done, and is this just retroactive confirmation? Hon. C. Hansen: The bargaining units as they were defined prior to the introduction of Bill 23 in the spring of year 2001, a year ago…. That was the bill that was brought in by the previous government to force the amalgamation of the two bargaining units — the facil- ity sector and the community sector. What Bill 29 did was go back to the previous

definitions of the bargain- ing units that had been put in place prior to Bill 23 of that session being brought in. In the reference in Bill 29 it mistakenly referred to that Labour Relations Board ruling as 573/98, which was the year that it was brought in, and it should in fact have been B73/98. In Bill 11, the miscellaneous statutes bill that's be- fore us now,

section 5 corrects the mistake and, instead of the 30 days in Bill 29, provides for 90 days for that to be implemented. Given the time it's taken for Bill 11 to be dealt with in this chamber, we now have to extend it a little bit further to provide the 120 days for that change to be implemented. J. MacPhail: All right. Let me try it this way. How's it going in separating the bargaining units? Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, the LRB does not have the ability to deal with that until such time as the legis- lation is corrected, and that's what's before us today.

Once this is corrected, the actions will be taken with the LRB to ensure that the facilities and the community bargaining tables are re-established as provided for in 1998. [1045] J. MacPhail: Am I correct in assuming that no work has been done? I'm going to assert that no work has been done to separate the bargaining units. Has the minister given any thought to the conse- quences of separating bargaining units?

With massive layoffs of health care workers and the requirement of government for needing health care workers in other areas, has the minister had any second thoughts that perhaps it isn't such a wise move to separate the bar- gaining units? Hon. C. Hansen: I seek some direction from the Chair, because I think the member's question goes far beyond the scope of the amendment and

section 5 that's before us today. I'd be pleased to have that dis- cussion with her, but I don't believe this is the appro- priate opportunity. J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm raising it, Mr. Chair, is because the amendment, Bill 11, was tabled before the massive announcements of radical restruc- turing of health care.

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

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

Per- haps the proof will be in the pudding as we go through this radical restructuring of moving people — laying off people in acute care facilities and then expecting them to give up all of their seniority, all of the benefits that they've gained in the collective agreement and all of the training they've gained and then moving them to another institution that is perhaps covered by a sepa- rate agreement and a separate bargaining unit.

3050 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 I t m a k e s m u c h g r e a t e r s e n s e , i f i n d e e d t h i s g o v - ernment has any hope of having this restructuring work, for there to be a common structure amongst which health care workers, nurses, care aides, LPNs and technologists can establish the proper way to be trained and to be assigned for work. Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved on division. On

section 6. J. MacPhail: This

section has done away with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. That has been quite a shock to the apprenticeship community and the technical trades community. What are the minister's actions on dealing with anybody to promote apprenticeship? [1050] Hon. S. Bond: We certainly had a lengthy discus- sion about this in estimates with the member opposite. What we have done is preserved the training dollars — almost $70 million — for skills and trades training in the province of British Columbia.

We currently have a transition advisory council in place which is composed of members of labour, industry and education. They are working at looking at a new model of delivering training in the province that is responsive, flexible and will help us address the skills issues that will face the province. J. MacPhail: Well, what's happening? Maybe I can have some specifics. Who are these people? What parts of the industry do they represent? What's the composition of people who will be deciding these issues? Are they business people like the government has appointed to virtually every other board in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: The industry training transition ad- visory committee is composed of a number of representatives. We have Michael Coughlin, the executive vice-president of Cascade Aerospace; Allan Cullen, the president of Detroit Diesel-Allison in British Columbia; Rod Goy, the training director of the electrical construction industry joint training committee; Philip Hochstein, executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors; Phillip Legg, the policy director of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Tony Knowles, the president of the B.C. Institute of Technology, Murray MacLeay, the president of the B. C.

Construction Association; Janet Marwick, the executive director of the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association of B.C.; and Jim Utley, the vice-president of human resources, Teck Cominco. J. MacPhail: Okay, let me see. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven employers, one labour representative and one academic. Am I correct on that? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, Rod Goy is the training direc- tor of the electrical construction industry joint training committee and represents labour as well, and there is one educator. J. MacPhail: But he is from the employer side of that body.

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

Let me ask this question on an update. What is the work of the new transition board now? What is their business plan? Hon. S. Bond: I'm just pleased to let the member opposite know that the transition advisory committee met last week. They will be meeting every three weeks. They are developing models and suggestions for how training will be more responsive so that, in fact, we can put a plan in place that would deal with what is consid- ered to be a looming shortage of skilled workers in this province.

They are doing a great job, and they are going to create opportunities not only for employers but also for students in this province to look at viable alternatives to non-university pathways in the province. J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will help people at the College of the Rockies where mechanics tuition in- creased by 100 percent. That'll help a lot. Tell me. The ITAC had a business that was bal- anced and by the year 2005 would have doubled the number of tradespeople in the province to 50,000. What's the transition board's plan to just maintain that status quo? [1055] Hon. S.

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

They're meeting again in two weeks with a set of suggestions on what the new model might look like. J. MacPhail: What's the plan? Am I to understand that the board met…? Did the minister say a few weeks ago? So we've lost a year. Here we have a former

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3051 commission that had a business plan, a workable, agreed-upon plan for 50,000 trained tradespeople by the year 2005, and now we're starting from scratch. Is that what we're supposed to take from this? Hon. S. Bond: We are going to build on the com- plement of 16,000 apprentices that are currently in the system. We are going to look at the entry-level trades training program and how we might make that more responsive. We are obviously looking at the work that's been done by ITAC, by industry and by individual businesses that train people in this province.

We have a great foundation for the work we're going to do. The transition advisory committee met. We'll be bringing back more recommendations within the next two weeks. J. MacPhail: ITAC had representation from the K- to-12 system. Has the minister had a chance to read the chamber of commerce's report on skills shortage issued last week? Hon. S. Bond: As a matter fact, let's just see. Is it called Closing the Skills Gap ? Yes, actually, I have read it. We're working on what steps we might look at in terms of working with the chamber of commerce.

The interesting part of this report, which talks about the apprenticeship model in British Columbia, is that, lo and behold, they think we actually need to revise it and look at a new way of doing it. So, in fact, the report does…. I was actually encouraged by the fact that in- dustry has said it's not just government's responsibility to take care of skills and trades training; they want to be partners with us and are quite encouraging in terms of the direction we're taking. J. MacPhail: Y e s , a nd i n f ac t I T A C was i nd e p e nd - ent of government.

The chamber of commerce says that there has to be a balanced approach, a completely inte- grated approach, not a bunch of employers telling eve- rybody else what to do. It is such a model of this gov- ernment that they listen to one voice — one voice — and ignore everybody else who has an opinion on any- thing about what might be best for the future. They go d i r e c t l y t o e m p l o y e r s , m o s t o f t h e m h u g e d o n o r s t o their campaigns. Phil Hochstein is the largest donor to the Liberal government — the largest donor. And there he is. We've now got the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Isn't that good news for a skills shortage? Not one per- son on the board from K-to-12 — not one. What is the workplan of the new transition board to get younger people, who now can't afford to actually g o t o p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s ? W h a t ' s t h e p l a n o f the transition board to work with the K-to-12 section? Hon. S.

Bond: As far as I'm aware — and certainly from our perspective, K-to-12 was not represented on the ITAC commission — what the chamber of com- merce and others are saying to us in terms of K-to-12 is that we need to work together to look at a cultural shift in the province, that it isn't the province's responsibility all by itself. In fact, we're going to work with industry, labour and education to try to say that being a skilled and trained worker in British Columbia is important, is necessary, and we're going to help you do that. [1100] J.

MacPhail: Actually, ITAC worked very closely with the K-to-12 sector and had representation on it. It's interesting how the corporate memory is fading so much here. Let me ask this: what's the government's plan for dealing with the skills shortage in terms of their par- ticipation? If the transition board will take this long, what's the government's plan? Will it be all of the tran- sition board's responsibility to deal with the skills shortage? Hon. S. Bond: We will obviously be represented on the industry training advisory commission.

We have sent block funding to institutions to continue to sup- port skills and trades training. We are going to take an aggressive and very proactive approach to training in this province.

Section 6 approved on the following division: YEAS — 64 Falcon Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson Masi Thorpe Hagen Murray Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Brenzinger Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Nijjar Wong Suffredine MacKay K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan [1105]

Section 7 approved.

3052 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 On

section 8. J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the conse- quences of removing these three marine parks from

schedule C? Hon. J. Murray: This amendment has to do with the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy agreement with the federal government in which some areas that were a provincial park are being removed from park status so they can be transferred to a federal park under that agreement. J. MacPhail: What's the piece of federal legislation that guarantees its existence? Hon. J. Murray: The Canada National Parks Act. J. MacPhail: Does that piece of federal legislation have a

schedule that designates parks by name? Hon. J. Murray: Yes it does, and they will make amendments once the transfer takes place. [1110] J. MacPhail: Does the transfer carry the same names, or are the three marine parks being renamed? Hon. J. Murray: The federal government hasn't made that decision yet — whether they'll have an um- brella name for the collection of lands and marine and parks or whether they'll maintain individual names. J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware whether there'll be any public consultation on that? Hon. J.

Murray: There's been extensive consultation on this agreement — a series of meetings in and around the Gulf Islands — so that there has been con- sultation on the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy. Secondly, the federal government has said it will honour local names as they proceed.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. MacPhail: This is to do with the benefits of dep- uty ministers appointed on or after September 1, 2001. What are the consequences of this amendment? Hon. S. Santori: The amendment is to put the dep- uty ministers who came on board after September 1 consistent with the pension provision of all other em- ployees in the public service — from 1½ times of accu- mulated pension time to a 1 to 1. J. MacPhail: So now deputy ministers who have joined the government after September 2001 get year- for-year, month-for-month earnings, instead of 1½ months for a month? Hon. S. Santori: Correct. That's true. Sections 9 to 26 inclusive approved. On

section 27. J. MacPhail: What consultation was done between the city of Vancouver and the Municipal Finance Au- thority around this change? Hon. G. Abbott: The consultation with respect to this has been extensive and, in fact, goes back some years. It is very strongly supported by the city of Van- couver and the Municipal Finance Authority. [1115] The Chair: Before we proceed, I just want to be clear that it was

section 16 through

section 22 that had passed. Sections 27 to 38 inclusive approved. On

section 39. Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing on the order paper to

section 39, which adds a subsec- tion (4). [SECTION 39, by adding the following subsection:

(4) Section 1 is deemed to have come into force on March 31, 2002 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date.] Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:16 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendments. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. G. Collins: With leave, now. Leave granted. Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3053 Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 17. Committee of the Whole House CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 11:18 a.m.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. Kwan:

Section 2 redefines the circumstances in which a child would need protection. The previous act states that if a person believes that a child has been or is likely to be harmed by the child's parent or another person in contact with the child, then that child should be reported to the child protection social worker. The rewording of this

section would require a person, as the minister advised during the second reading stage, to report abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of the child's parents or guardian. [1120] I think the major change is in the case where there i s p ro o f o f ab u s e o r ne g l e c t . In t hat i ns t anc e , t he n t he reporting is done, and only in that instance an investi- gation would take place. Is that the intent of the legisla- tion? Hon. G. Hogg: The member is partially correct. It also provides further clarification inasmuch as

section 13 is when the ministry can respond to orders and de- lineates the direction and focus by which we can re- spond. There is currently an inconsistency between sec- tion 14(1), which is being repealed, and the provisions which allow action to take place under

section 13. It is intended to bring those into consistency so that the ac- tions taken are consistent with what is being reported. J. Kwan: Yes, I see in the explanatory notes that it bridges the inconsistency that the minister has men- tioned. I'm reading from second reading stage comments from the minister. Maybe the minister can explain to me what the onus of proof is then, with this change, for people to report a child who is faced with abuse and neglect.

The comments from the minister are as follows: "The major amendments are, firstly, an amendment which clarifies what must be reported to child protection social workers for assessment and investigation. At present the act requires every person who believes a child has been or is likely to be harmed by the child's parent or another person to contact a child protection social worker. This obligation to report causes confusion and the expenditure of child protection resources where the director of child protection does not have a mandate to intervene. The proposed rewording of

section 14 of the act would require a person to report abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of the child's parent or guardian. This is consistent with child welfare legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada and with the mandate of the ministry." This is the comment. I'm particularly interested in un- derstanding what is the onus of proof for a person to report abuse or neglect. Before, if you believed that there was an issue you should report it, but now the minister is saying that it was too onerous and that the child protection director did not have the mandate to intervene.

I would assume that one would require some level of proof of abuse or neglect before they could report. At what level would that be required? I worry that…. I'll see what the minister's answer is on the issue around onus of proof. Hon. G. Hogg: The test is the same. Previously, however, there was a requirement for reporting any- time there was an assumption or belief of any abuse or neglect and that may exist independent of the parents or guardians. It is now focused on abuse and neglect coming from parents and/or guardians who have re- sponsibility for the safekeeping and care of the child.

So it's now narrowed to focus on them rather than what might happen in a school yard. If a child is abused in a school yard in a bullying or a fighting cir- cumstance, that will now be dealt with by the police and the school. The test is exactly the same but now focused more specifically on those who have direct responsibility for custody and parenting. [1125] T. Christensen: A t t h e r i s k o f b e i n g p e r h a p s a b i t repetitive in terms of the questions asked by the mem- ber for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I do want to seek some additional clarification.

As I see it, sections 13 and 14 in the Child, Family and Community Service Act are, in effect, the purpose sections of the bill. Cer- tainly, as the public sees this legislation as child protec- tion legislation, sections 13 and 14 go right to the heart of that issue. As I read the legislation,

section 13 sets out the cir- cumstances in which protection is needed, and then

section 14 reflects the societal obligation to report cir- cumstances in which child protection is needed. Per- haps the minister could briefly and simply state why the mandatory reporting provision is being changed. What necessitated this change? Hon. G. Hogg: The mandatory reporting provision is being changed to clarify what should be reported to child protection social workers for both assessment and investigation. The current wording causes some confu- sion, because it extends beyond the protection mandate of the ministry.

It causes confusion inasmuch as the actions which may be implied are not simply implied with respect to the issue of protection, which is the mandate of the ministry, as is reflected in

section 13. T. Christensen: Thanks to the minister for the an- swer. Based on the minister's answers, I understand

3054 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 then that

section 13 essentially sets out where the min- istry can get involved. Currently, if there's a report, for example, of a school-yard bullying incident where one child is being threatened with physical harm by per- haps a bigger child in the school yard, if that gets re- ported to the ministry, the ministry has no legislative mandate or ability to get involved. Yet

section 14, as it's currently worded in the act, would actually require somebody to report it to the ministry. Yet the ministry can't do anything about it? Hon. G. Hogg: That's basically correct. I guess the expansion of that might be that if a child was being bul- lied as the member points out and the parent chooses not to do anything about it or is unable to do something about it, then it may be an issue of protection that would fall back into that. That's the only area in which

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

section 13. In terms of

section 14, I know there is certainly some history to this legislation, given child protection concerns and the history of concerns in this province. It's my understanding that

section 14, and the wording of

section 14(1) in particular, essentially resulted from a recommendation arising from the Gove inquiry. Can the minister confirm that or comment on that? [1130] Hon. G. Hogg: The member is correct. It is some- thing which arose as a result of Judge Gove and Judge Gove's concerns on issues around it. There were amendments in 1995 that did broaden the expectation. The expectation was that social workers would get involved in almost anything and try and make some judgments with respect to how to best discern what the appropriate course of action might be and how to re- solve that.

Unfortunately, it also brought into the pur- view of social workers a number of things which we didn't have the authority to respond to and to act on. This allows us to focus more appropriately on those decisions that focus on the protection mandate and reduces the expectation, which was that the ministry could do and be almost anything to everyone. As was pointed out earlier, our focus with respect to the areas we can respond to was being broadened by that expectation, and false expectations were being set up. This focuses more directly on the responsibilities that exist in

section 13. It allows our ministry and its protec- tion mandate to be focused on that area rather than the broad circulating issues that might be focusing around there and which the community had expectations that we could respond to, which in fact were not reflected in our direct mandate nor our ability to respond. T. Christensen: I n m a k i n g t h i s c h a n g e , d o e s t h e minister anticipate any danger to children and youth in essentially narrowing the obligation to report, or does this really simply bring the reporting obligation in line with what is currently ministry practice? Hon. G.

Hogg: Certainly the latter. I think it more consistent with the practice. The amendment does not narrow the mandate of child protection social workers, nor does it leave children and youth under the ministry without a protection mandate.

The amendment, I be- lieve, simply clarifies public expectations with respect to the ministry's involvement in child welfare matters s o t hat t he p u b l i c wi l l b e c l e a r, o r c l e a re r, ab o u t wh at situations the ministry may intervene in, and it reduces the costs related to child protection resources spent on those situations that are not within the purview of the direct mandates. This change is also consistent with child welfare legislations as they exist in other prov- inces across Canada. Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved. On

section 5. J. Kwan: In

section 5, which refers to

section 19 of the act, the director is given the ability to investigate the situation and remove the child from that situation. However, if you look at the act, this

section also refer- ences

section 63, which discusses who is a suitable cus- todian for the child. Is it right to assume this amend- ment means that a warrant is used not only for remov- ing a child from a potentially dangerous situation but also for selecting a new custodian for the child? Hon. G. Hogg: No, it does not allow us to make those moves in terms of placing it in the custody of someone else. It simply allows for a protection worker, a social worker, to contact the judge by phone to seek enforcement of an order which has previously been made by the courts. It's an enforcement provision that allows for the enforcement of previously court-ordered provisions. [1135] Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved. On

section 8. J. Kwan: The current legislation only allows for the child to be placed with the custody of the director or the parent and does not allow for a person other than a parent to have custody of the child. This section, I think, changes that. My first question to the minister is: who is a suit- able person to take custody of a child? Hon. G. Hogg: The test would be basically the same test that would be applied in the placement of any other home. This is at the presentation hearing.

Currently, the legislation requires that the presentation hearing only gives the judge the option of placing the child in the care of the state or back into their parental home. This broadens the provisions which the courts

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3055 will have available to them at the presentation hearing stage and allows them to look at extended family, peo- ple who may have a bond with the child, so that the placement can be made in the best interest of the child. But the tests being applied to that would be the same that would be applied in the placement.

If at the presentation hearing the courts make a determination that they're going to bring the child into the temporary care of the state, then for the placement into a home the same tests would be applied in those circumstances as in broadening the circumstances to allow an extended family or a person who has a bond, an affiliation with or affection for the child. The princi- ple driving all that still has to be what's in the best in- terests of the child. How can a safe place and provision be provided?

Can we do that in the experience where a child may have contact with somebody and therefore feel more comfortable about a move which may be very traumatic in terms of the life of the child and their family? J. Kwan: Does it allow for input from the child's parents at this stage of determination? Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it does. At the presentation hearing the parents would be present and certainly would have access to and the opportunity to speak to the courts with respect to any decisions being made at that point in time. J.

Kwan: Is there any requirement that the person who the child would be placed with actually has knowledge of or knows the child beforehand? Could the child be placed with a complete stranger? Hon. G. Hogg: There is an expectation, clearly, that the child would know and have some contact with a person being proposed by the director. It is the courts, however, that make the decisions, and there may well be some other people who are presenting at the presen- tation hearing other than the director who may be pro- viding a name.

It may be the parents who are suggest- ing: "Here is someone who we think is appropriate for the placement of the child at this point in time." That decision in those cases would be made by the courts. The person being put forward by the director would be someone who has a significant role with the child.

It could be family friends who step forward and agree that they want to be the custodial caregiver while the director works with the parents to improve matters or whatever the circumstances or issues may be. [1140] I guess, in specific response to the member's ques- tion, if somebody in the courts or if the parents pro- vided a name of somebody that the child did not have previous contact with, then certainly we would want to have the opportunity to check that out and make sure it was an appropriate placement.

We would not be supporting a placement with someone that we knew nothing about or that they didn't have any contact with. Ultimately, this is a provision which provides the courts to be able to make decisions. We're setting the principles out within the legislation which the courts should reference in making those decisions. Those are in the best interests of the child, and continuity of care is an important part of that process. J.

Kwan: If the intent of the legislation is to ensure that where the custody of the child could be afforded to a person outside of the parent, and it could be a family friend or relative — however, the condition is such that the child must have prior knowledge and relationship with such an individual — how come the legislation doesn't explicitly say that? Hon. G. Hogg: The belief is that that can best be covered with respect to this matter within policy, that the legislation lays out the specifics, but the policy will lay out the manner in which that might be achieved.

The member made specific reference to if it's somebody that the child may not have contact with or may not know. As an example, it may be an aboriginal commu- nity, or it may be many different cultures who have different parenting practices and the utilization in many cultures of extended families, which is a far bet- ter practice than we tend to practise in our society to- day.

It may be that it's someone that an aboriginal community or a band may be recommending, and the band may be supporting the placement of an aboriginal child within the context of an extended family or an elder or someone within the community that may not have had a lot of contact with the community. In those instances we would want to be able to say to the courts, or the courts would want to be able to make a decision in their best interest…. Those can best be covered in policy, because there is a myriad of options and possibilities that exist.

The principle that is reflected in the legislation is the best interests of the child and giving the courts the oppor- tunity to expand the options that they currently have, which I said earlier are limited to just apprehending the child or returning the child to their current parental circumstance or situation. We want to be able to broaden that second option so the courts could utilize extended family, friends or other people that may exist within the context of the constellation of that child and therefore give them an- other option to be able to find and develop a safe care plan at the presentation hearing.

The protection hear- ing, which is held sometime subsequent to that to make a definitive determination, will be based on the infor- mation from the presentation hearing and the direc- tion. We don't want to disrupt a child any more than necessary at that very traumatic time in their lives and i n t h e l i v e s o f t h e f a m i l y .

I f w e c a n f i n d a g r o u p , a n extended family, someone they have contact with or somebody that the culture or the neighbourhood may be supporting, then that is the least traumatic and most effective way of providing a transition and some conti- nuity for the child and allowing the ministry to work to try and deal with whatever the issues may be and

3056 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 hopefully being able to reunite the nuclear family in a way that will allow them to provide the care which they can best and most appropriately provide in most circumstances and situations. [1145] J. Kwan: This

section relates to

section 12, the amendment of the act, which refers to

section 42.1. If the idea is that it would allow for a child to be referred to an individual, whether it be a family friend, a rela- tive or someone in the community as the minister sug- gested, who could possibly care for the child…. We're talking about

section 8 right now, but it's related to

section 12 as well, because

section 12 talks about making a change to

section 42.1 of the act by striking out the words "was caring for the child" and substituting "had custody of the child." There's a rela- tionship here I'm trying to draw. This

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

Given that the range of care for a child who may be leaving the parent for protection purposes already ex- ists, is the key issue centred around custody? It seems to me that the big change is the entitlement to custody. Hon. G. Hogg: W he n we g e t t o s e ct i o n 12 we c an deal with that more specifically. At this point the courts do not have an option in their provisions. The options that the member is referring to are options which are created by the ministry if the child is taken into tempo- rary care. Those are the options that exist.

We want to provide for more options to the courts to make deci- sions and give a freer and more open hearing in which parents can make suggestions as to where the child should go. Currently, if a judge makes a determination at the presentation hearing that the child is going to come into temporary care, then it's the ministry that makes that placement. The ministry has a range of options which the member has alluded to.

If the courts are able to make the determination, then the parents, extended family and other interested parties may make submis- sions to the court, saying: "We believe this is where the child should go. We believe that it is in the best interest of the child to be with this person." The courts could then make that determination. Today they don't have control over that determina- tion. They have two options.

Often, if they choose the option to take the child into temporary care, the minis- try would then be making those decisions and in many cases making exactly the type of decisions which may well be made by the court should this provision pass. We're giving that option to the courts rather than mak- ing it an administrative issue. J. Kwan: Currently, child protection workers and social workers within the ministry already have the right to place a child, on an interim basis, with a family friend, a relative or someone who the worker deems to be appropriate to care for the child.

I would assume that the worker already tries to place the child in the home of a relative. In terms of options to place the child, it doesn't really broaden them from the worker's perspective. [1150] When that happens from the ministry side, it is my understanding that the child remains in the legal cus- tody of the province. The province is then responsible for financially supporting that child. Does this change mean that the custody is transferred to the relative, friend or community member who the court may deem would act in the best interests of the child and be ap- propriate to care for the child?

And does it mean that the cost of caring for that child would be shifted from the province to the person who would have custody? Hon. G. Hogg: I think I heard about three questions in that. I'll try and see if I can discern them. Firstly, one of the shifts is that we believe parents, extended family and people who know the children best should be involved in that decision-making process and be a part of it. As to those movements that the member has re- ferred to in terms of the placement of a child taking place, the ministry will still provide maintenance for them as those changes take place.

I think the member's opening comments in the last question referred to a court circumstance and the range of options that are available. I remember sitting in court a number of times, and the issue at this point in time is often the uncertainty that exists for a family as they go into court. If the judge makes a determination that the child is going to come into temporary custody, there's a certain amount of angst and clearly a lot of uncertainty as to the placement that the child may be moving into subsequent to that, when the family leaves that courtroom and the child remains.

There's much more transparency, openness and certainty that exist for a family if, at that pivotal point in the courtroom when everyone is anxious, the judge is able to say, "Your child is now going to be placed with an uncle or with an extended family," and provide that certainty right at that point when things are at that pivotal emo- tional moment. It helps to allay some of the concerns and emotions that are so high within the courtroom at that point in time with respect to those types of place- ments. I think those were the three parts to the question that I heard from the member. J.

Kwan: The minister advises that it is the intent of the province to continue to pay for the support of the child under this

section of the act. In the case where the individual is on income assistance and it is determined that this individual, who happens to be a relative of the child, would then have custody of the child, under the

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3057 changes with the Human Resources minister's Bill 26 the relative who then takes custody of the child will no longer qualify for income assistance for the child. They're expected to pay for the care of that child. There seems to be a contradiction. Does this act actually over- ride the other one — that is to say that the ministry will actually pay for the care of the child by this individual? Hon. G. Hogg:

Section 25 of the amendment act pro- vides for the ability of the Ministry of Children and Fam- ily Development to provide for maintenance of those children in need. That is distinct and separate from the issues contained in the Ministry of Human Resource's action around children in the home of a relative. [1155] J. Kwan: I just want to be absolutely clear on this, because I was under the impression that if a child went into the home of a relative, that individual would have to pay for the care of the child unless the entire family unit is on income assistance.

If that entire family is not on income assistance and doesn't qualify for income assistance, when they have a child placed in the home of a relative, that child's costs in terms of caring for the child would have to be paid for by that relative. You're saying that's not correct. The province would actually pay for the care of that child. Hon. G. Hogg: The ministry has the option under its legislation to make payments in those circum- stances, so, yes, we have that option available to us. It's not automatic.

If a child is placed in a family which is extremely wealthy and very capable of doing that, then it's not good use of the state's dollars to be making claimants in those instances. Certainly, if there are is- sues of concern with respect to the maintenance and ability of the family for economic reasons to be able to be the appropriate placement, the ministry has the ca- pacity and the ability to provide maintenance pay- ments in those circumstances. J. Kwan: What are the criteria for determination of eligibility for support from the ministry then? Hon. G. Hogg: Those assessments are made indi- vidually.

There isn't an assessment that's made under MHR eligibility criteria. Those are assessments that are made on an individual basis based on the best interests and needs of the child and the family's capacity to deal with the issues of the child. J. Kwan: So the assessment for eligibility is done by the Ministry of Human Resources, not by this ministry? Hon. G. Hogg: No.

The assessment is done by our ministry, by a social worker who would meet with the family and make a determination with respect to the family's capacity given all of the circumstances that may be contained within the constellation of that fam- ily — to be able to determine their ability to maintain and support another child within their home. What- ever maintenance needs were determined by the social worker would be the factors which would determine the amount of maintenance provided. J. Kwan: Is there an income threshold that the min- istry uses to determine eligibility? If so, what is it? Hon. G. Hogg: No.

There's not an income threshold because the circumstances vary so dramatically. It may be that a family with a fairly high income may well have an autistic child in their family which they're helping to support and assist with, and they bring an- other child into it. To have an income threshold would not be an appropriate way of making a decision with respect to the ability of a family to support another child within the context of their home. That's why it h a s t o b e a n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c i r c u m - stances. J. Kwan: I do note the time.

Perhaps I'll continue with questions for the minister on this

section after the lunch hour. Hon. G. Hogg: I move that the committee rise, re- port progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:58 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having re- ported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. C. Hansen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. The House adjourned at 12 noon.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0430am-15
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0430am 15
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6696178756debec3b25a5ad1b72c4ca55845459d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).